Articles

3 judges dissent on rehearing denial in stun belt case

The full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to not rehear an Indiana case about a convicted murder’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims relating to a stun belt used in court, though three judges disagreed and felt the northern Indiana federal judge’s decision should be upheld.

Read More

Circuit Court split on rehearing judicial canons case

Indiana’s two federal appeals judges disagree about whether the full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals should reconsider
a Wisconsin case about the judicial code of conduct in that state, paving the way for a further battle before the nation’s
highest court that could influence Indiana’s judicial canons.

Read More

7th Circuit reverses lower court on stun-belt issue

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District judge’s decision that a man convicted of murder received ineffective
assistance of counsel during his trial because his attorney didn’t object to the state making him wear a stun belt in
court.

Read More

7th Circuit: Officer allowed to resume frisk

As one 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge cautioned, it’s generally not a good idea to ride around in a car with cocaine on you when
police have many reasons why they may legitimately stop the car.

Read More

7th Circuit rules on attorney withdraw brief practicalities

Ruling on an issue of first impression, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today extended the logic of an eight-year-old case
to how criminal defendants challenge their supervised release and revocation penalties and what must be discussed in attorney
withdraw briefs on those issues.

Read More

U.S. judge: Indiana Supreme Court was wrong

A federal judge has tossed a death row inmate's capital sentence, saying the Indiana Supreme Court was wrong in ruling the man convicted of a triple murder wasn't prejudiced by having to wear a stun belt in the jury's presence.

Read More

Federal judge OKs state’s judicial canons

A federal judge says the Indiana Supreme Court can regulate judicial speech through its cannons, and has ruled the existing rules do not violate a judge or judicial candidate's constitutional free speech or association rights.

Read More