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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT