ILNews

Opinions Jan. 3, 2012

January 3, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States v. Jason Smith
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. U.S. Judge Robert Miller, Jr.
11-2016
Criminal. Affirms District Court’s denial of motion to suppress evidence and motion for acquittal for a man convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possessing crack cocaine with intent to deliver and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug transaction. The court rejected arguments that Jason Smith didn’t commit a traffic infraction and that the government constructively amended his indictment about when the traffic stop occurred.

The Indiana Supreme and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Steven Jackson v. State of Indiana
31A01-1109-PC-412
Post conviction. Affirms court’s order partially granting a post-conviction relief petition but denying appellant-defendant’s request to accept a proffered agreement in that PCR proceeding. Holds the post-conviction court wasn’t required to accept the requirement because a PCR proceeding isn’t the equivalent of a civil proceeding and the Indiana Supreme Court has said a post-conviction court has final authority in accepting agreements.

Deborah L. Dysert v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and the Indiana Supreme Court (NFP)
93A02-1105-EX-392
Civil. Affirms determination of Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that Dubois County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Deborah Dysert’s employer discharged her for just cause.

Robert O. Broyles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1103-CR-338
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s aggregate eight-year sentence for a man convicted of voyeurism, child solicitation and sexual misconduct with a minor.

Daniel Minnick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-1106-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms two misdemeanor drunk driving convictions and a speeding infraction on grounds that sufficient evidence existed and the trial court didn’t violate a defendant’s federal and state rights to confrontation when admitting a breath test instrument into evidence without live testimony from the technician who inspected the device.

Thomas Curry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-551
Criminal. Affirms a Class C felony burglary conviction on grounds that sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction.

Edward Chandler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1107-PC-396
Post conviction. Affirms the denial of a successive petition for post-conviction relief on grounds that the evidence would lead to an opposite conclusion than that reached by the court.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT