Inconsistent verdicts in criminal cases are permissible and are not subject to judicial review.
Berghuis v. Smith, No. 08–1402, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 30, 2010)
Sixth Amendment jury trial right’s “fair cross-section” requirement demands no particular method for determining fair representation of “distinctive groups.”
Akard v. State, No. 79A02-0904-CR-345, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 30, 2010)
Use in State’s case-in-chief of defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence violated the Doyle v. Ohio rule against using defendant’s post-Miranda silence against him.
Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08–651, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 31, 2010)
Under the Sixth Amendment Strickland standard for effective assistance of counsel, “constitutionally competent counsel would have advised [the defendant] that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation.”
Clarion Health Partners, Inc. v. Wagler, No. 49A02-0907-CV-598, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2010)
Determination by two malpractice panelists that it could not be determined whether defendant’s action caused harm was without any evidentiary import for summary judgment purposes, and as nurse practitioner’s affidavit submitted by plaintiff could not be considered for summary judgment, third panelist’s conclusion defendant negligently caused injury shifted burden to plaintiff to show a genuine issue on causation.