Because the arresting officer could only testify that the defendant’s vehicle “was going over the posted speed limit”, he did not have specific articulable facts to support his initiation of a traffic stop, and therefore it violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Criminal
Durden v. State, No. 18S-CR-329, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 20, 2018).
Even though trial court improperly removed a juror after deliberations had begun, defendant’s convictions were affirmed because he and his defense counsel expressly agreed to the constitutionally-defective procedure as part of a deliberate trial strategy.
Fansler v. State, No. 27S02-1710-CR-672, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 21, 2018).
Ind. Evid. Rule 617 does not require the State to make available at trial electronic recordings of defendant’s incriminating statements made in a motel room because it was not a “place of detention.”
Knutson v. State, No. 12A04-1709-CR-2246, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 31, 2018).
Unlawful possession of a syringe cannot be enhanced to a Level 5 felony based on a prior conviction pursuant to the general offense-level statute (Ind. Code § 16-42-19-27).
McCoy v. Louisiana, No.16-8255, __US__ (May 14, 2018).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the objective of his defense and to insist that his counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experienced-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty.