Re: Hoosier State Press Association on Brewington case details -- Dearborn County Public Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

Subject: Re: Hoosier State Press Association on Brewington case details

Author:
Dan Brewington (It was "legal strategy")

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:51:50 05/21/14 Wed
In reply to: Anon 's message, "Re: Hoosier State Press Association on Brewington case details" on 13:24:07 05/20/14 Tue

Actually it was invited error. The Supreme Court said my public defender, Bryan Barrett, not providing the proper jury instructions was a defense strategy. The Court stated, "Our principal concern is not whether that strategy promoted careful constitutional doctrine (which it did not), but rather whether it afforded Defendant a reasonably effective defense to his particular case (which it did)." Barrett met with me for an hour when he was first assigned to the case and never met with me again. He didn't call any witnesses, subpoena any evidence, take any depositions, offer any evidence, etc... When he failed to do anything in offering proper jury instructions, Justice Rush wrote it was trial strategy. The Court said I didn't get the constitutional protections but Barrett invited the error. So even the Court is admitting that my prosecution could have been based on constitutionally protected speech. Pathetic.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]