ILNews

Sentenced as adult at 12, new plea may free Gingerich at 18

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A boy who at age 12 was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and improperly sentenced as an adult to serve 25 years in prison may be freed when he turns 18, according to a pending plea agreement.

Paul H. Gingerich, now 15, would remain at the Pendleton Juvenile Correctional facility and be freed after his 18th birthday if he meets terms of the agreement that still must be approved by a judge in Kosciusko County. Under the agreement, Gingerich will be eligible for release in February 2016.

The deal comes after Gingerich’s conviction was reversed on appeal because he was denied a full investigation and hearing before the juvenile court waived his case to adult court. His counsel also was denied continuances to prepare for a waiver hearing just days after Gingerich was charged. The Indiana Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeals decision.

Gingerich was convicted along with then-15-year-old Colt Lundy for his role in the shooting death of Lundy’s stepfather, Phillip Danner, in his home in Cromwell. Lundy had orchestrated a plan in which Gingerich and another 12-year-old boy would take Danner’s car and go to Arizona, where Lundy’s biological father lived.

Lundy signaled Gingerich to come inside the home then supplied him with a handgun, but Gingerich said he entered the house with the intention of talking the older boy out of going through with his plan to kill his stepfather.

In the deal signed by Gingerich, defense attorney Monica Foster and Kosciusko Prosecutor Daniel Hampton, Gingerich pleads guilty to a count of conspiracy to commit murder as a Class A felony and the state drops charges of murder and aiding, inducing and causing murder.

“We have progressed a long way from where we started and think this was a just result,” Foster said. “It was a tragic, terrible crime that occurred, but the prosecutor’s office, to their credit, was willing to look at all the facts.”

Those facts include the influence Lundy exerted over Gingerich, she said. “I’m not sure the older boy intended to intimidate him, it was just the nature of the relationship.”

The plea includes the same conviction and sentence imposed in adult court – 30 years with five suspended, plus credit for time served – but it sets a review hearing after Gingerich’s 18th birthday at which time the sentence may be suspended and a judge may order his release.

“The level necessary to restrict defendant’s freedom will be directly correlated to his successfulness in completing assigned rehabilitative programs and adherence to the rules and regulations of the program, the facility, and of society,” the plea agreement says.

A proposed transitional plan for Gingerich indicates he “is currently working towards his Academic Honors Diploma at Pendleton Juvenile.” He may enroll in college courses upon completion of his diploma, at which time he also may be considered for referral to a community residential group home, according to the plan. Both of those could happen by next summer, Foster said.

“He’s really been an extraordinary student at the Pendleton Juvenile Facility,” Foster said. “He’s been sort of a leader with the other students in helping them to do the right thing.”

Gingerich has also had the benefit of twice-weekly visits from his mother, Nicole, and frequent visits from his father, Paul, Foster said.

Foster said Gingerich’s formal sentencing is expected to take place in January.

Gingerich is believed to be the youngest offender ever sentenced as an adult in Indiana, and his case rallied opponents of tough sentencing for juveniles. Indiana Code 31-30-3-4, passed in 1997, allows children as young as 10 to be waived to adult court.

Karen Grau, president and executive producer of Indianapolis-based filmmakers Calimari Productions, said a new documentary on the Gingerich case is scheduled to air on the Lifetime Network soon, now that the case has been tentatively resolved. She said an airdate likely will be decided this week.

Grau also was involved in an earlier documentary focused on Gingerich and Lundy called “Young Kids, Hard Time”  that aired on MSNBC.

Like Gingerich, Lundy also was sentenced to 30 years with five suspended for his conviction of conspiracy to commit murder. Lundy is held at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. His projected release date is in 2022, according to the Department of Correction.

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT