Monday, June 09, 2014
Ind. Decisions - "Blogger Wants Ind. Supreme Court To Reconsider His Case, With One Less Justice"
Mike Perleberg of Eagle County Online has a story this afternoon reporting that Dan Brewington has filed a motion for a rehearing with the Supreme Court. Some quotes:
(Indianapolis, Ind.) – An internet blogger who served more than two years in prison after his conviction for intimidating a Dearborn County judge is trying to get his case before the Indiana Supreme Court for a second time.Here is a copy of the 18-page petition for rehearing and the 36-page motion for disqualification of Justice Rush, both as posted by Mr. Brewington. In his blog entry today, Mr. Brewington writes:
Last month, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled to uphold Brewington’s 2011 jury trial convictions for Intimidation of a Judge and Obstruction of Justice. Brewington had blogged extensively about the handling of his divorce and child custody case by Dearborn Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey and a doctor asked to perform the custody evaluation. Prosecutors said – and justices have unanimously agreed – that the posts went beyond protected free speech and crossed into threats.
“Fear for one’s reputation is often the price of being a public figure, or of involvement in public issues. But fear for one’s safety is not,” Justice Loretta H. Rush wrote in the May 1 opinion for Brewington v. State of Indiana.
In a 36-page pro se request filed with the Indiana Supreme Court last week, Brewington asks that Rush be disqualified from hearing the case, citing a personal experience she had. Brewington had not raised the issue prior to the Supreme Court ruling.
Justice Loretta H. Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court have wandered into dangerous constitutional and ethical waters in their recent ruling in Brewington v State. I have addressed some of the major points in the opinion, authored by Justice Rush, in my Petition for Rehearing and my Motion for Judicial Disqualification, both filed with the Supreme Court last week. I decided to write and file the briefs on my own because no lawyer could obtain a knowledge of the two thousand pages of trial records necessary to refute the findings of Justice Rush. It was a conscience decision to fill the Petition for Rehearing with fact and commonsense arguments rather than waste case law on a Court that would go so far as to manipulate the jury’s findings on my perjury conviction to help bolster the Supreme Court’s case against me.Notice that Mr. Brewington says his pro se documents were filed last week. But the most recent entries in the docket for the case show only that on May 23rd his two attorneys had filed a motion to withdraw their appearance, and on June 4th the motion is shown as granted. There currently is no indication in the docket that Mr. Brewington's documents have been received/accepted by the Clerk's office.
B. Time for Filing Petition. A Petition for Rehearing shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the decision. Rule 25(C), which grants a three-day extension of time for service by mail or third-party commercial carrier, does not extend the due date, and no extension of time shall be granted.The Indiana Supreme Court issued its opinion on May 1, which means Mr. Brewington's petition for rehearing was due last Monday, June 2.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 9, 2014 05:10 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions