“Absent agreement otherwise, ‘a lawyer retained under a contingent fee contract but discharged prior to the contingency is entitled to recover the value of services rendered if there is a subsequent settlement or award[,]’ and in that case, ‘the fee is to be measured by the proportion of the total fee equal to the contribution of the discharged lawyer’s efforts to the ultimate result[.]’”
Grady v. North Carolina, No. 14-593, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 30, 2015).
Attachment of a GPS monitor to a recidivist sex offender without his consent is a Fourth Amendment search; as the question of the reasonableness of the GPS monitor “search” in this case was not raised, the Court does not address it.
Jackson v. State, No. 34A01-1409-CR-455, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2015).
Probation condition to report within forty-eight hours an arrest or charge for a “new criminal offense” was ambiguous as to whether it applied to an arrest or charge for an offense committed before the probationary period began; holds the ambiguity must be construed against the State, so that the reporting condition did not include arrests or charges for offenses committed before probation began.
Moore v. State, No. 71S00-1405-LW-361, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).
The incredible dubiosity rule is inapplicable in the present case because the factors [1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence] were not present.
McCowan v. State, No. 64S03-1408-Cr-516, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 25, 2015).
“[I]t is the absolute right of every criminal defendant to receive the following jury instruction upon request: ‘The presumption of innocence continues in favor of the defendant throughout the trial. You should fit the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent if you can reasonably do so.’”