Trial lawyers love bumper stickers. This is so because it enables trial tacticians to uncover the types of people to seat on a prospective jury that would be most favorable to their case. Through pre trial questioning, there is often few better sources of information than bumper stickers to uncover a person’s true passion for certain issues or causes.

If an individual is passionate enough about a belief or cause to announce that position to the world with each successive car ride, a criminal defense attorney can be most comfortable with a determination that an opinion expressed on the bumper sticker is credible and not merely stated to be selected to the jury.

Yesterday I learned of yet another glowing example of the value of bumper stickers to a civilized society. Apparently a man in Connecticut incensed at such a mobile declaration exclaiming, “Impeach Obama,” promptly proceeded to give the middle finger salute to the driver of the traveling bumper sticker.

As so often comes next, criminal charges have been filed as a consequence of the resulting road rage incident whereby it has been suggested that fisticuffs and other mayhem ensued.

Within a free society all have the right to free speech. As a lawyer, one of the most important lessons we learn is that the right to free speech is absolutely essential to the workings of a society founded upon liberty and justice for all members of society.

Just as essential is the recognition that free speech often comes with a cost. Those to whom a political and potentially controversial opinion has been broadcast also have the equal ability to mock or otherwise shun both the opinion and person broadcasting a message some may find outrageous.

Unfortunately, the free speech declarations presented on bumper stickers, often intended to inflame the passions of drivers operating motor vehicles around them, is simply a public safety concern that serves little public good in today’s world.

Public safety concerns on our nation’s roadways have never been higher. Increased traffic congestion as well as the careless operation of motor vehicles have sent the incidents of road rage across America soaring. With the advent of mobile technology and driver ability to text while driving, much less talk, thrown into this combustible mix, are our roadways not distracted enough?

Enter bumper stickers. Thankfully, to my untrained eye, it appears that the use of bumper stickers to broadcast public messages has decreased over the years. I believe this is probably the case due to the public’s newfound ability to distribute points of view more widely and effectively over mediums such as the internet than in days gone by.

While the internet can proliferate one’s opinion or message to a broader spectrum of people far more effectively than a traveling bumper sticker, such action is typically safer to the declarant as well. Unlike the internet, a bumper sticker message is often in position to enrage the sensibilities of one digesting its message while driving a moving automobile capable of inflicting damage upon one excercising free speech as well as others traveling the roadways.

The right to free speech in America is not absolute. A judicial recognition that such speech may be constrained where public safety is at risk has firmly been established. (ex. cannot scream fire in a crowded theatre)

Road rage and other hazards we all must navigate each time we operate a motor vehicle is no laughing matter. Although my views presented in this article to outlaw bumper stickers is somewhat tongue in cheek, I can certainly justify a credible position behind legislative action to restrict such messages based upon public safety concerns.

Lawyers have been trained with the musings of judicial thought that has expressed that the right to free speech exits between the space from the end of my fist to the tip of your nose.

For those still willing to brave the freedom of free speech affixed to your automobile, please know the risk of not only being at the receiving end of a fist, but also another car’s 60 mph message directed at your own bumper.

Outrage throughout the internet and within Indiana communities have followed news that an Indiana police officer and his nurse wife have been charged with the crime of illegal possession of a deer. The crime is a Class C  Misdemeanor within the state of Indiana, subjecting the couple to up to sixty days in jail and a five hundred dollar fine.

The public anger has been generated by facts that have come out within the case indicating that the couple’s actions were those of compassion in rescuing a young deer they were nursing back to health. As the criminal statutue is one intended to uphold the humane treatment of animals, questions posed on a statewide scale have been directed at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and why their limited taxpayer resources have been used to further criminal prosecution in this matter.

The couple is comprised of a Connersville Police Officer and a Nurse who relate that their actions were motivated by a desire to save a deer that had turned up on their seventeen acre farm. The couple states that the deer was afflicted with maggot infected puncture wounds ravaging its body; to turn the deer away and do nothing was against all of their moral beliefs even if returning the deer back to the wild is what the statute apparently orders Hoosiers to do.

Despite a law enforcement background  the couple asserts that they had no idea that Indiana law required them to return the injured deer back into the wild. However, had they known of such a law it would not have altered their conduct as returning the deer in the manner Indiana law suggests would have amounted to a “death sentence” to the injured deer.

As it stands now, the couple has stated that despite a legal expense that will exceed the potential fine, they are determined to fight the criminal charges out of principal.

From the perspective of an Indiana criminal defense attorney, it is refreshing to learn of an engaged public willing to assert itself into the arbitrary and illogicial decision making process of public officials. These arbitrary decisions are no surprise to most defense attorneys who practice criminal law on a statewide basis.

The enforcement of laws are only as credible as the individuals empowered to make such decisions on behalf of society. While there are many conscientious prosecutors offices, there are inevitably others that fall short of their civic obligations to restrain their enforcement power where facts of a specific case warrant.

Unfortunately, it often takes sensationalized fact patterns wholly devoid of logic or reason to once again alert the public as to the absolute need to be vigilant to the arbitrary actions of law enforcement; actions that have the capacity to inflict great cost not only to individuals but to the general principals and belief systems held by a compassionate society.

“Just following the law,” is simply not an acceptable position to advance in favor of prosecuting all criminal allegations. It is incumbant upon state prosecutors to fully investigate the validity of criminal charges and use discretion before putting into action the state power of government on behalf of principals we as a society value fighting for and preserving.

While it is the Indiana Department of Natural Resources who have thus far born the brunt of criticism for the prosecution, I would suggest that this anger at the IDNR, though justified, is somewhat misplaced.

It is the attorneys within the Fayette County Prosecutor’s Office responsible for the investigation and filing of criminal cases who deserve scrutiny. While IDNR officials arguably should not have even taken the time to compile a report to submit to prosecutors, it is the prosecutors who filed the case who should bear the blame if the facts prove not to conflict with the couple’s assertions.

Already the latest news suggests that the IDNR in the wake of mounting public criticism has now publicly advocated for prosecutors to dismiss the criminal charges in the case.

What such haphazard action suggests is the reality that in truth, an insufficient investigation took place in the matter such that the validity of charges in this case were likely never fully investigated.

How many other such criminal cases are filed each year within prosecutor’s offices nationwide for whom the term discretion is secondary to the assertion of misdirected power and authority for its own sake?

Only when full and complete criminal investigations are commenced can prosecutorial discretion be properly implemented. In so doing, embarrassing episodes like this one can be contained and properly disposed of before reaching a criminal courtroom.

With IDNR’s public backtracking on the issue of prosecution, the ball has been placed squarely within the hands of prosecutors. Already the game of face saving has begun as the Decataur County Prosecutor has now been assigned responsibility for the continued prosecution. This action of prosecutorial re assignment has been conveniently taken due to the alleged contact between the police officer/Defendant in question and the Fayette County Prosecutor in the man’s role as a Connersville Police Officer.

Reading the tea leaves it should only be a matter of days before the Decataur County prosecutor takes action to dismiss all charges in the case; criminal charges that should never have been brought in the first place.

When criminal laws are poorly written, true justice is denied to those accused of criminal offenses. Without clear criminal guidelines with which to assess potential guilt or innocence, a defense lawyer in Indiana is deprived a meaningful opportunity to counsel one in his or her care as to pre trial options that may meet the best interests of all parties concerned.

Poorly written criminal laws will inevitably afflict trial lawyers who are compelled to interpret their proper application within trial courts across America. When the mechanisms of justice are working properly within the legal system, courts of review are there as a last line of resort to affirm proper implementation of these laws in an apolitical manner. Often, the justice handed down may not be in the conventional sense that the general public has come to expect in terms of the punishment of one arrested. Rather, the more uneasy recognition that justice has been affirmed sometimes must come from judicial decisions that run counter to our desire to see that punishment has been meeted out within individual cases.

I was initially consulted on a case that has presently been dismissed within the Indiana court of appeals. The case dealt with the voyouristic activity of one present within retail establishments of a mall in Indianapolis who was alleged to have been using a shoe affixed camera to film beneath the skirts of females shopping beside him.

As prosecutors alleged some of the targeted female individuals to be under the age of eighteen, crimes related to child exploitation were directed at the Defendant who was ultimately convicted at trial. Troubling to me even prior to the trial was my assessment that based upon the fact pattern presented, the defendant’s guilt would ultimately not rest with the trial court but with an appellate review of a law that had been worded against the clear notion of what legislators had probably intended but had not enacted.

Specifically, a review of the child exploitation statute in Indiana carried two essential elements for prosecutors to prove: 1.) that the child subject to the exploitation be exhibiting uncovered genitals and 2.) that the child is exhibiting uncovered genitals with the intent to satisy another’s sexual desire.

As the prosecution moved forward I harbored serious doubts as to whether prosecutors actually intended to suggest within the public forum of a court of law that the alleged child victims in question actually intended to have aroused the sexual desires of the Defendant.

To withstand adherence to the statute within this case fact pattern, a prosecutor would need to have presented a near impossible set of circumstances; a fact pattern that would assert that child female shoppers wearing skirts with no undergarments went to a mall whereby they would willingly expose their genitals to arouse the sexual desire of an individual recording them from a shoe affixed camera.

True to my initial prediction, defense motions for a directed verdict were turned aside as despite the clear wording of the child exploitation statute, the court was not going to allow a literal interpretation of the statute to get in the way of a jury’s determination as to Defendant’s accused conduct.

The case has now been dismissed by the Indiana Court of Appeals for the following clear and concise reasons; 1.) no allegations were even put forth to suggest that the alleged child victims shopped within the mall without undergarments that left their genitals exposed, and 2.) there was never evidence presented by prosecutors to assert that the child victims intended to arouse the sexual desire of the defendant through the exhibiting of their genitals beneath their clothing.

From an Indiana defense perspective it is clear that the appellate court simply could not have reached any other conclusion than to dismiss the conviciton based upon the wording of the child exploitation statute. Regrettably, the decision was not unanimous as one of the three appellate jurists was willing to leave the conviction undisturbed as against the clear intention of the state legislature.

I would submit that to simpy absolve the actions of state legislators by decrying that dismissal is against the intention of the criminal statute is to undermine the entirety of the legislative process.

Defense lawyers and prosecutors have the right and need to rely upon the wording of criminal statutes to guide their efforts. Should the wording of a criminal statutue contravene the common sense purpose of what most reasonable people would expect, it is the duty of prosecutors to alert legislators as to the need to clarify laws so as to prevent the dismissal of otherwise meritorious prosecutions.

It is a monumental waste of taxpayer and governmental resources for defense lawyers to be the ones who must prompt reformed legislative action through trial outcomes adverse to lawmakers intent. When lawmakers are called to account for the negligent drafting of criminal statutes it should be they and not jurists and defense lawyers who should feel the heat.

As is often the case, politicians seeking to demonstrate a zeal to tackle drug problems do so in a scattershot way that utlimately does little more than burden the lawful public. Indiana legislators have stepped up to the plate with their latest legislative offering that now would require all individuals to obtain a prescription to purchase all cold and allergy medicines that containe pseudoephedrine; an ingredient used in the manufacture of Methamphetamine.

In theory the proposed Indiana law seeks to restrict the ability of drug manufacturers to buy large quantities of pseudoephedrine used to make Meth within formerly available over the counter cold and allergy medications. While Indiana’s new legislative action may serve to deter illegal drug activity to some extent, one must question whether the inconvenience and expense posed to the consuming public is worth any perceived benefits this law may bring. Those legislators speaking up against the bill in Indiana assert that Oregon and Mississippi are the only two states who have implemented comparable laws proposed by Indiana; and that in both states the results have been unimpressive.

The more realized unintended benefit of the law may simply be to stoke anger among the law abiding public who may be inclined to direct their ire to illegal drug manufacturers as a primary cause of their inconvenience. Law abiding citizens will be compelled to make arrangments from otherwise productive lives to pay for doctors appointments; medical visits that will have added a skyrocketing surcharge to the cost of effective cold remedies or allergy treatments formerly available without beuracratic restriction.

To those who value our nation’s civil liberties, it is precisely these sorts of legislative acts that demonstate capitulation to the actions of drug distributors in inflicting needless hardship and cost to a victimized consuming public. As an Indiana criminal lawyer, I would submit that the public has in this instance not only been victimized by those seeking to manufacture drugs, but also lawmakers who have failured to tailor reasonably focused laws to address the societal problem of Meth manufacturing in rural areas of Indiana.

Requiring the panacea of a medical prescription as a means to curb illegal drug use runs counter to the nationwide increase in prescription drug abuse and fraud cases. Clearly those with a motive to manufacture or obtain drugs will not allow the impediment of a prescription to alter the course of drug abuse within Indiana in any appreciable way.

Labeling all consumers as potentially culpable parties in the illegal drug trade is off the mark. Education programs at the grass roots level in conjunction with old fashioned investigative methods that pursue probable cause against those within communities actually responsible for drug activity are tried and true methods for curtailing illegal activity proven to yield positive results.

Further, a new program rolled out within the past year in Indiana labeled NPLEx, is an experimental tracking system developed to aid pharmacists and law enforcement in investigating suspicious drug purchasing activity. Whether the program merits further usage remains to be seen. However, at a minimum it is a focused effort directed at establishing probable cause against specific individuals and not the whole of the purchasing public.

In past post information I explored the pending Indiana procedural appeal dealing with whether a twelve year old could be legally sentenced as an adult for a crime commited within Kosciusko County Indiana.

In the wake of the Indiana Court Of Appeals decision to reverse the murder conviction and remand back to the trial court, the appellate court ruling rightly centered its objection to the limited timeframe within which initial defense attorneys were given to prepare for a juvenile, “waiver” hearing.

The waiver hearing in Indiana is of critical importance within juvenile court cases, as it is a designated forum by which a juvenile judge must make a judicial determination as to whether a juvenile should be legally tried and treated as an adult offender.

The crime alleged, case circumstances, prior juvenile history of the accused as well as age are all factors that must be weighed when formulating a judicial order capable of withstanding judicial challenge.

Let there be no mistake; most defense attorneys understand the need for the concept of waiver hearings. The judicial mechanism by which certain juvenile conduct may be found to be so egregious that adult treatment and potential punishment is warranted. While the circumstances may be debated as to what crimes, juvenile history and life circumstances warranting such a waiver may differ, such debate is not only appropriate but legally required within juvenile courts across Indiana.

Only with full and robust litigation can Indiana take its place among all civilized judicial systems nationwide that recognize that although we may allow for juveniles to be selectively treated as adults, the ability to do so must be implemented sparingly.

It is through the judicial juvenile waiver hearing that the highest regard for legal procedures must be adhered to in recognition that treating a juvenile for adult punishment contravenes the basic notions of a just society.

Whether a twelve year old boy should be permitted to be held accountable for adult punishment is one issue in the waiver debate that many Indiana juvenile attorneys will differ. Where I formerly believed there would exist little room for debate was the court’s order that providing defense lawyers a few days to prepare for a waiver hearing of such monumental importance was legally insufficient to affirm the waiver decision.

Unfortunately, my prior optimism that prosecutors within the Indiana Attorney General’s Office would take the reasoned approach to respect the sound and sensible decision of the appellate court was misplaced. At great expense to Indiana taxpayers the attorney general’s office has taken the position that the appeallate court ruling was incorrect and have chosen to appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court.

By way of speculation, one can only be left to deduce that our governmental prosecutors have taken the position that the considered abilty to try and punish a twelve year old juvenile following mere days of defense preparation for a waiver hearing is a decision worth fighting for.

I would respectfully submit that taking legal action to challenge the sound and principaled decision of the appellate court in this matter undermines credibility for the procedural process by which the legal system determines adult culpability toward juvenile offenders within Indiana.

In the retail war to combat shoplifting and theft, Mannequins are now being deployed to observe shoppers. Through the eyes of these mannequins in their midst, people are now potentially being watched within retail establishments throughout the nation. Whether this activity is soon coming to a store near you is open to question and in large measure will be determined by public opinion and reaction to this recently emerging form of monitoring activity.

Indiana shoplifting laws as well as those within most states require signs to be posted alerting to the possibility that shopping activity can be monitored; not unlike those warnings posted around changing areas of most stores. However, as with all disclaimers, retailers are fully aware that when most individuals become psychologically immersed in shopping activity, they typically become desensitized to many signs or warnings around them.

Of course the standard line to be disseminated among retailers toward their customers is that these video mannequins are not deployed to catch and prosecute shoplifting activity. Rather, they are in use simply to record and observe the shopping habits and/or activities of the purchasing public. In this way they can better serve their customers in displaying and presenting potential purchase items in a manner that best suits their customers needs and tastes.

Common sense dictates that this marketing line is insulting to the intelligence of the purchasing public. While spying on customers may certainly help determine what shoppers are buying or how long they linger in certain sections, less invasive alternatives are available to store owners than concealing video monitors through the eye holes of mannequins to research the spending habits of consumers.

As these retail practices begin to be broadcast toward the general public; business associations know that there are typically two different reactions to these type of threats to the civil liberties of the purchasing public. One; outrage that one’s pirvacy is being invaded and a vow never to patronize such an establishment willing to surruptitiously videotape what they wish to remain an intimate buying activity, or two; customers whose foremost concern is the product desired. While not in favor of being watched, such consumers will not be dissuaded from patronizing such a store if the product sold is one that they desire. Such people believe that they have nothing to fear from being watched and recognize the need retailers have to prevent theft from prevailing within their establishments.

As broadcasts of such retail practices become more understood by the buying public, retailers considering the implementation of such monitoring devices are now scrutinizing the reactions of potential consumers carefully. It is only in response to public consternation to uphold privacy concerns that these practices on the part of retail establishments will be curtailed in the near future.

As a result, the right to privacy in this country will be tested against the interests of a consumer public often fixated on material possession no matter the inconvenience or shopping experience. Where our laws have given the green light for retailers to spy on their customers, I suspect it is the desire for products and not the need for privacy that will determine the ultimate shopping experience offered to the consuming public.

With the proverbial, “fiscal cliff,” headed our way, policy issues affecting criminal law and procedure may be adversely affected within the coming weeks. How such economic challenges will impact law enforcement and the administration of justice within the state of Indiana and other states of the union remain to be seen. However, one thing is certain; those seeking swift adjudication of their claims within either criminal or civil courts may soon be sorely disappointed as the wheels of justice may soon come to a grinding halt.

Conventional wisdom among Indiana criminal attorneys and those lawyers within other jurisdictions have speculated that federal court more than state courts may find more of an adverse impact should congress not quickly address the economic challenges presented by automatic across the board spending cuts in all areas of public administration.

With the power of the federal purse curtailed, it is believed that federal court administration more directly impacted by federal, as opposed to state revenue, will feel the impact of an immediate cut off in national spending resources more quickly.

Those with present legal claims before such federal tribunals may find that the otherwise slow legal resolution to their cases have become even more delayed.

Criminal defendants eager to clear their good names so as to be released from pre trial detention or remove the stigma of pending federal criminal charges may find a justice system unresponsive to their concerns.

Those who have had their cases decided and find themselves at the mercy of probation department supervision to successfully be discharged from further court ordered monitoring may be frustrated that their abiity to accomplish their court ordered tasks to be impeded by a probation department structure in a state of disarray.

No matter the fiscal responsibility and bottom lines of responsible state court governments, the fiscal cliff discussion does not spare respective state courts and local law enforcement communities from needed discussion as to how to implement crime fighting efforts post cliff, not to mention the oversight responsibilities toward those either accused of crimes or under the jurisdiction of probation department personel nationwide.

More specifically, it has yet to be determined the ancillary impact of potential layoffs in government workers involved with any area of either court administration and/or enforcement. Not unlike the rationale for the bailout of the American auto industry to bolster the ecomonic viability of small businesses dependant upon providing services to american industry, our citizens may soon find that court services related to the swift determination of court rulings, probation supervision and/or legal investigation necessary for a sound justice system to be halted as governmental layoffs affect even the most stable local governments.

As we approach the coming year let us all be hopeful that our elected officials not only come together to address the potential calamity to the business climate that the impending fiscal cliff may bring, but to also recognize the potential crippling of other essential functions of the American system of government; namely the criminal and civil justice systems should political agreement not soon prevail in Washington, D.C.

All citizens depend upon the sound and swift administration of justice as an essential underpinning of a stable society. Let us not allow the full faith and credit of the United Stated government to be squandered not only in economic terms, but also in the capital of confidence those within this country and around the world have had for the model of justice thus far presented by american jurisprudence.

As other states begin to revisit public policy issues most notably in regard to the decriminalization of Marijuana, Indiana has remained predictibly inactive. Our justice system in Indiana is slow to react to changing public stances on formerly controversial issues. Our state legislators have been conditioned to follow in lock step with the public policy positions of organizations such as those populated by county prosecutors who have been traditionally loath to bend to any suggestion that can lend to a political challenge that a respective prosecutor is, “soft on crime.”

In light of these present day realities, it is most refreshing when a law enforcement leader of consequence in Indiana has the courage to suggest that our efforts as to the criminal apprehension and prosecution of those possessing small amounts of Marijuana may be in need of modification. 

Offering his candid opinion to state legislators, soon to be former Indiana State Police Superintendent Paul Whitesell advanced his position that Indiana should consider legalizing Marijuana possession in small quantities within the borders of Indiana and tax the drug to aid in public revenue that can be directed at more pressing crime fighting efforts.

Superintendent Whitesell’s views followed in the heels of isolated pockets of public pronouncements by state legislators such as Brent Steele willing to consider the merits of prioritizing law enforcement efforts to criminal conduct more perilous to public safety while simultaneously adding needed revenue to the state’s bottom line.

Many observers heartened by some of Indiana lawmakers willingness to buck traditional wisdom and actually propose brave measures that may be contrary to their own political self interest sensed momentum for such reform. In previous years so much as dignifying the possibility that drug reform measures within Indiana have a place in a law and order discussion would be considered heresy. Although prosecutors from around the state offered their boilerplate opposition to such efforts at decriminalization, legislative discussion on the part of some legislators and law enforcement leaders such as Superintendent Whitesell was not being deterred.

As so often is the case within the politics of conservative states such as Indiana, the momentum for robust policy debate on this issue has been halted once more with the emergence of a new election cycle. With the election of new conservative political leaders, most significantly, Governor Mike Pence, drug reform measures gaining public traction within the media and halls of the legislature are being conveniently thwarted through politically expedient appointments potentially made to preserve and restore the status quo. 

As Governor Pence begins to assemble his appointments to lead the policy initiatives of Indiana within the coming years, one man will not be asked to advance futher drug reform positions in his capacity as a law enforcement leader. Although the new governor has chosen to keep many former experienced governmental leaders brought into public service by the former Governor Mitch Daniels, Indiana State Police Superintendent Paul Whitesell will not be among them.

It is my sincere hope that Whitesell’s departure from continued government service is not linked to his outspoken and courageous views questioning the present logistics of our present criminal enforcement policies toward Marijuana. Only time will tell whether Whitesell’s departure was his own decision and that Governor Pence’s action to appoint someone new is not with the intention of suppressing further reasoned discussion on controversial issues dealing with law enforcement policy.

Only through vigorous debate and a willingness to acknowledge the potential failings of coventional wisdom can Indiana be recognized as a leader among states advancing the most progressive policies for others to learn from. For too long legal advancement in our state has been hindered by conservative principals resistant to productive change. Let us allow the momentum for reasoned drug reform policy debate to move forward and not take our place once more at the back of the line when it comes to progressive and bold public policy initiatives that other states can actually learn from. 

I have previously commented about the pending Indiana appellate court review of an adult sentence for a twelve year old boy convicted of murder. I believed the case to be a black mark on our justice system on different levels; not only for the allowance for a twelve year old to be treated as an adult for the crime, but more importantly, for the substandard procedural process that gave defense attorneys little time to present arguments to substantiate why juvenile jurisdiction was appropriate.

Within the trial court in Kosciusko county, the presiding judge gave just four days for the defense lawyers to prepare its case as to why adult court jurisdiction in the matter was legally inappropriate. By way of perspective, it is not uncommon for Indiana juvenile attorneys to be granted several months to present evidence within such a “waiver hearing” (a hearing to determine whether the minor child will be treated as a juvenile or sent to adult court).

A four day window of time to prepare for the former hearing mandated by the trial judge indicated to me the appearance of a pre disposed desire to usher the original prosecution to adult court. It is difficult to fashion a rationale as to how such expediency promotes a fair and unbiased determination of jurisdiction based upon sufficient evidence presented. Simply consulting and arranging the expert witness testimony of professionals such as forensic psychologists who can testify as to the child’s mental state and understanding will most commonly take several weeks.

While the specific facts of any juvenile case may, in fact, warrant adult court treatment, the procedural process by which such an important ruling is made must be the biproduct of thoughtful and careful deliberation. I believed that a four day period of time before a waiver was considered was simply unacceptable and indicative of a ruling motivated by the emotion of the moment and not the tempered judgement that should be required of all judges in the state.

Thankfully, reason has prevailed with the unanimous decision of the court of appeals ordering a new trial for the now fourteen year old. In large measure the court based its decision upon the above referenced procedural process leading to the waiver hearing in question. The appellate court ruled that the time frame given to defense attorneys within the original trial court to stop adult court transfer was insufficient. As a result, the case has been sent back to Kosciusko county for a new trial.

As a defense lawyer my first thought in a case like this is not to let one’s guard down. The attorney general may take action to appeal the appellate court decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. Further, the trial court may simply spurn the spirit behind the reversal of its original decision and give short shrift to a fair determination of the testimony now to be presented no matter how much time is given to prepare.

Appellate court judges are known to give great deference to trial court rulings issued by judges throughout the state. In most instances such determinations are made as a result of thoughtful and deliberate consideration of all issues. However, in cases such as this, the moral fabric of our society is put on public display. At the very least it is my hope that all parties respect the present appellate court decision without further appeal. In so doing, all legal professionals in Indiana can take heart in the fact that procedural principals will be protected as a means of withstanding both future legal scutiny as well as the moral sensibilities of the general public.

Former interim Police Chief Rick Hite has been chosen by Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard to head up the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. I believe the hire is a crucial one at an important time period within the largest city in the states history.

In recent months based upon a general impression of incompetence and/or favoritism to the interests of those within their own ranks and not those of the public, confidence and trust toward those protected by the department has been argued to be at a historic low.

As the Bisard case slogs forward through the appellate process toward the finish line of a just resolution, it will be incumbant upon new Chief Hite as well as new Public Safety Director Troy Riggs to work as a team. Unlike their predecessors, Hite and Riggs must pro actively demonstrate to all sectors of the public that the police can be counted on to become more active within local communities and in turn more capable of making proper discretionary calls as to how to best police those within their respective beats.

Riggs’ former policy decision to reverse course and implement more cops assigned to designated sectors I believe to be the right call. It enables assigned officers to establish ties to those within their policed areas. Let’s hope that Chief Hite is on the same page as to such policy directives. In so doing, mutual confidence between the public and respective officers can be developed with better decisions made as to the focus of targeted prosecution as opposed to a haphazard approach of arrest first ask questions later.

From the Gary area, Police Chief Hite has a broad experience to draw from in regard to community policing and the challenges of connecting with a broad populace. I have heard that on a personal level he is a decent man who has a history of doing the right things for people even when the glare of media attention is not focused in his direction.

Good intentions to the contrary, law enforcement’s future success within the Indianapolis community will be only as great as the involvement between law enforcement and those within the Marion County Prosecutor’s office.

The Bisard incident is a case study in what can go wrong when police officials and county prosecutors work under a spirit of mistrust and suspicion. The crisis of confidence was allegedly so great that the Marion County Prosecutor was not so much as consulted when blood draw evidence within the Bisard prosecution was handled and moved without either the knowledge or authorization of Prosecutor Terry Curry.

When these police officials work with divergent interests from those within a prosecutor’s office, the credibility of all evidence put forward against those accused of criminal activity should be and is is put under suspicion. In Marion County there is reason for heightened alert as to the reliablity of evidence in recent months. First, the documented and non disclosed problems with former evidence produced by the local blood lab within drug and drunk driving prosecutions. Next, the culture of concealment and negligence bordering on cover up within the Bisard case.

While in my capacity as a defense attorney shoddy evidence practices serve my interests in allowing me to dismiss criminal charges, it is always far preferrable for our citizenry to never fall victim of careless police arrest and prosecution in the first place.

I offer my congratulations to new Police Chief Hite and renew my hope that a dialogue of mutual trust can be re established within the greater Indianapolis community among police, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.