ILNews

Opinions Sept. 9, 2013

September 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions Sept. 9, 2013

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Christopher Eads

12-2464
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 480-month sentence for distributing child pornography, possessing child pornography and tampering with a witness. Addresses the issues Eads raises on appeal but upholds the decision of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Finds the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Eads to represent himself; the conviction for witness tampering was supported by the evidence; a new trial is not warranted because no new evidence has been discovered; and the discussion of 18 U.S.C. 3553 factors at sentencing was sufficient. Agrees with Eads that the district court erred in not thoroughly explaining on the record why it allowed images to be shown to the jury but rules the error is harmless because the additional evidence against him was overwhelming.   

United States of America v. Christopher Spears
11-1683
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands for resentencing on convictions of producing false identification and unlawful possession of false identification. Holds that the federal aggravated identity theft statute USC §1028A’s reference to “another person” may not be extended to fake ID bearing the true name of the recipient, and therefore vacates conviction and two-year sentence.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of S.L., and J.L., Children Alleged to be Children In Need of Services, S.B.-L., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

79A05-1303-JC-98
Juvenile. Affirms determination that J.L and S.L. are children in need of services.

Jerry Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1302-PC-133
Post-conviction. Affirms 55-year aggregate sentence imposed by post-conviction relief court on a Class A felony count of criminal deviate conduct and four counts of Class B criminal deviate conduct.

Boubacarr Moussa v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1209-CR-449
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony failure to stop after an accident causing serious bodily injury.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline Monday.


 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT