I don't think people understand what just happened here. Law is based on precedent, as in Case Law. It defines how all judges throughout the State/Country should rule and is used by the appeals court to overrule or affirm. Before I get into the obvious conflict of interest with the judge, lets chat about the three legged table known as White vs State, 25 N.E.3d 107.
White was the anchor used in this decision but White was 7 distinct counts, 6 class D, 1 Class C. Two of those Class D felonies were tossed by inexplicably sua sponte (that means the Judge(s) said "hold up, even though neither attorney brought this up, this makes no sense...basically"). Count 1 was tossed because it was irrelevant. That leaves the class C and two class Ds. One of which is the Theft Conviction used as the anchor here.
I will let the Appeals Court explain: "12 Notably, White does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his theft conviction." (Page 25 footnote) as if to say "why didnt you?" read the other footnotes. Anyway, I encourage you to read the opinion before you respond. I could also write more paragraphs on how the evidence is so much different.
Conflict of Interest? You mean to tell me this case was randomly assigned to the only Judge of Tipp County who was a former deputy prosecutor under Harrington? Knowing full well that just issuing a conviction solves a very local problem? Worst case, turned over on appeal and everyone is happy in the end?
Sounds amazing unless the court of appeals upholds this and the next time your favorite politician goes on an extended leave for a variety of reasons and the opposition points to this case as the precedent.
Sorry for offering a different spin here. I am a resident of Wabash Township, incredibly happy Teising is no longer the Trustee, but terrified of the message this entire process sends here. I mean, could a Trustee in the future ever say no to firefighters at this point?
I don't think people understand what just happened here. Law is based on precedent, as in Case Law. It defines how all judges throughout the State/Country should rule and is used by the appeals court to overrule or affirm. Before I get into the obvious conflict of interest with the judge, lets chat about the three legged table known as White vs State, 25 N.E.3d 107.
White was the anchor used in this decision but White was 7 distinct counts, 6 class D, 1 Class C. Two of those Class D felonies were tossed by inexplicably sua sponte (that means the Judge(s) said "hold up, even though neither attorney brought this up, this makes no sense...basically"). Count 1 was tossed because it was irrelevant. That leaves the class C and two class Ds. One of which is the Theft Conviction used as the anchor here.
I will let the Appeals Court explain: "12 Notably, White does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his theft conviction." (Page 25 footnote) as if to say "why didnt you?" read the other footnotes. Anyway, I encourage you to read the opinion before you respond. I could also write more paragraphs on how the evidence is so much different.
Conflict of Interest? You mean to tell me this case was randomly assigned to the only Judge of Tipp County who was a former deputy prosecutor under Harrington? Knowing full well that just issuing a conviction solves a very local problem? Worst case, turned over on appeal and everyone is happy in the end?
Sounds amazing unless the court of appeals upholds this and the next time your favorite politician goes on an extended leave for a variety of reasons and the opposition points to this case as the precedent.
Sorry for offering a different spin here. I am a resident of Wabash Township, incredibly happy Teising is no longer the Trustee, but terrified of the message this entire process sends here. I mean, could a Trustee in the future ever say no to firefighters at this point?
Crime never sleeps, eh?