The latest defeat for the exclusionary rule came in the case of Utah v. Strieff.
“Say nothing.” This advice seems simple enough, but any attorney with a few years under his or her belt knows that the advice is often not heeded.
On Dec. 30, 2015, comedian Bill Cosby was charged with sexual assault in Pennsylvania. These charges stemmed in part from various admissions Mr. Cosby made in a deposition in a civil suit. After learning this news, several thousand criminal defense lawyers scratched their balding heads as they Monday morning quarterbacked the decision to submit Cosby to a deposition.
“Back in our day,” reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop was based upon objective evidence that the suspect had committed a traffic violation.
There is a theme that permeates the news reporting of the 2008 financial crisis: no one went to jail as a consequence. In possible reaction to this theme, the U.S. Department of Justice recently issued a bulletin that has since been referred to as the “Yates Memo.”
Prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers need to know that there are times they are required to correct the trial court’s record.
The effectiveness of grand juries has been in the news lately. In one case, a Missouri grand jury failed to indict a police officer in a case involving the death of an unarmed suspect. When inconsistent testimony was raised as a possible justification for this result, many opined that police needed to carry body cameras. However, approximately a week later, a New York grand jury failed to indict another police officer involved in the death of an unarmed suspect where the officer’s interactions with the suspect were caught on a cellphone video. This led lawyers and non-lawyers alike to wonder what happens behind the closed doors of grand juries. This article speaks to how grand juries are used in Indiana.
In the last 30 days, we have waited patiently in waiting rooms for late doctors, sat stalled in pick-up lines at schools and, yes, even waited for judges. As attorneys, we know that in some courts, 9 a.m. really means 8:59:59 a.m., while, in other courts, 1 p.m. really means 1:30 p.m. We also know […]
We advise our clients that unfortunately, delays can be part of the court experience. However, one thing we have never advised our clients to do is “tell the court how you really feel.” Or, as Dave Chappelle would say, we have never advised our clients to “keep it real” with the court.
It is common knowledge that what you say can and will be used against you. But what about what you sing or intend to sing?
Recently, several published decisions have found attorneys to have engaged in improper advocacy. Here are three things to know about ethical advocacy in closing argument.
The Court of Appeals recently brought us the story of a woman, her dog and her not-so Gandhi-like attempt at passive resistance when her dogs were investigated for biting. The question before the Court of Appeals was whether this passive resistance was criminal.
The recent disciplinary case, Matter of Anonymous, is not the only time someone in Indiana has been disciplined for the conduct of another.
The Supreme Court of the United States recently held that an anonymous call to 911 was sufficient to initiate a traffic stop in certain specific circumstances. Navarette v. California, 2014 U.S. Lexis 2930 (2014). The decision set off a minor shockwave in the media with reports that the 5-4 opinion eroded Fourth Amendment protection.
At some point, you may have the wonderful opportunity to respond to a disciplinary grievance. With that in mind, here are three things to know about responding to a disciplinary commission grievance.
In 2012, the General Assembly amended Indiana’s public intoxication statute to provide, in part, that a person was guilty of public intoxication if the individual is intoxicated “in a public place” and “annoys … another person.” Indiana Code §7.1-5-1-3(a)(4). But what constitutes “annoying?”
Unfortunately, there comes a time in some attorney-client relationships when breakup is inevitable. You may have tried to “work things out” with your client, but things only got worse. So what do you do?
Danielle Kelly v. State is the first time that the Indiana Supreme Court has addressed law enforcement’s use of the “question first, Mirandize second” questioning technique. 997 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2013). Kelly also provides additional focus on the role technology plays in the changing scope of suspect/law enforcement interaction.
While social media has not mandated the creation of new ethical guidelines, it does make it easier to commit an ethical foul.