Opinions Sept. 9, 2013

September 9, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions Sept. 9, 2013

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

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
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)

Juvenile. Affirms determination that J.L and S.L. are children in need of services.

Jerry Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?