The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is seeking public comment on proposed revisions to criminal pattern jury instructions. Comments on the proposed changes will be accepted until Nov. 20.
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is asking the nation’s highest court to reinstate the death penalty against a man convicted of killing a Madison County woman and her 4-year-old daughter, arguing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals failed to properly defer to state court rulings when it overturned his death sentence earlier this year.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to two cases last week, including to a decision that gave a defendant the opportunity for a retrial after the Indiana Court of Appeals determined a jury instruction on “fleeing” law enforcement was fundamentally erroneous.
A man who drove to a police station in Porter County after he was hurt in a fight at a party, then apparently unconsciously drove his truck into vehicles parked outside the station, lost his appeal of his drunken-driving conviction.
The jury in the fraud trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended its first day of deliberations with a series of questions to the judge, including a request to “redefine” reasonable doubt. The questions came after roughly seven hours of deliberation, delivered in a handwritten note to U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III. Ellis read the questions aloud to lawyers for both sides as well as Manafort before he called the jury in to give his answers.
A man injured in a LaGrange County car crash will get a second chance to make his negligence case against the driver who allegedly caused the collision after the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed judgment in favor of the allegedly negligent driver and remanded the case for a new trial.
A man convicted in a Marion County drug-related murder has lost his appeal of his conviction after the Indiana Court of Appeals determined the trial judge was not required to admonish the jury about the absence of two witnesses without a request from the parties.
A man has been convicted in shootings last year at two Indianapolis police district offices.
A man convicted of involuntary manslaughter should get a new trial because two jurors at his original trial slept during testimony, the highest court in Massachusetts said in a decision released Thursday.
Evidence in the recent Taylor Swift case involved partially deleted recordings. How did the court respond to this ESI issue?
The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed Wednesday that a condition of a woman’s probation after attacking her neighbor needed further clarification, but the judges disagreed as to whether her felony battery with a deadly weapon conviction should be reversed.
In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man’s conviction of voluntary manslaughter, which the state chose to charge him with after he shot and killed his brother-in-law in what he claimed was self-defense.
A man’s convictions of battery and disorderly conduct will stand, but the Indiana Court of Appeals cautioned trial courts that including law enforcement affirmations in jury instructions should not, calling the practice “undesirable and completely avoidable.”
Over opposition from some attorneys including one from Indiana, the American Bar Association has adopted a resolution that calls for judges to instruct jurors on implicit bias.
The Indiana Supreme Court found a jury instruction that jurors “shall presume” that a man’s alcohol concentration equivalent was above the legal limit if his chemical test, taken hours later, was at 0.08 or higher was not fundamental error. As such, it affirmed his conviction.
A man whose Monroe County home was lost to mold contamination lost his appeal of a jury verdict in favor of his neighbor. The homeowner had claimed his neighbor’s excessive watering of her lawn caused water damage to the basement of his home.
The Indiana Court of Appeals found a man’s tendered jury instruction was a mistake of law and not a mistake of fact and upheld his conviction of felony resisting law enforcement by fleeing. The judges then outlined what fleeing law enforcement means and what rights police officers and drivers have to determine location of stops.