The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Kevin L. Hampton v. State of Indiana
84S04-1103-PC-161
Post conviction. Affirms the denial of Hampton’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, but holds that
an instruction on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not obviate the necessity, where the conduct of
the defendant constituting the commission of a charged offense is proven exclusively by circumstantial evidence, of an additional
jury instruction advising the jury that proof by circumstantial evidence must be so conclusive and sure as to exclude every
reasonable theory of innocence.
Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.
The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Pierre Freeman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1107-CR-341
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.
ILNews
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!