Monday, June 27, 2016
Still more on "Porter Co. Prosecutor faced with contempt in dispute with judge"
Updating these two posts from earlier this month:
- Ind. Courts - More on "Porter Co. Prosecutor faced with contempt in dispute with judge"
Updating this ILB post from yesterday, Kevin Nevers of the Chesterton Tribune has a good story on the dispute; it begins:The Indiana Supreme Court has been asked to intervene in a flap between Porter Superior Court Judge David Chidester...
Posted in The Indiana Law Blog on June 10, 2016 05:03 PM
- Ind. Courts - "Porter Co. Prosecutor faced with contempt in dispute with judge"
Bob Kasarda of the NWI Times has posted this story this afternoon. Some quotes, but read the whole story:VALPARAISO — The Indiana Supreme Court has been called in to settle a dispute heated enough that Porter Superior Court Judge David...
Posted in The Indiana Law Blog on June 9, 2016 05:46 PM
Here is the docket in the action. Here are:
- Relator’s Brief In Support Of Petition For Writs Of Prohibition And Mandamus - filed June 2, 2016, it begins:
Brian Gensel, Prosecuting Attorney for the 67th Judicial Circuit, by counsel Attorney General Gregory F. Zoeller, and his deputies Stephen R. Creason and Jesse R. Drum, respectfully petitions this Court for Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus directed to Porter Superior Court 4 and the Honorable David Chidester, as Judge thereof. The writ should prohibit Respondents from issuing and enforcing orders in OVWI cases that direct Relator to ex parte file with the court police reports, which, under this Court’s clearly established precedent, are confidential, privileged attorney work product materials. It should also direct Respondent Court to retract its related 0rdérs, including the rules to show cause why the Relator and his deputies should not be held in contempt.
- Respondent's Brief in Opposition to the Writ - filed June 24, 2016, it begins:
The State seeks a writ of mandamus — an extraordinary remedy — to prevent Respondent from reviewing a copy of police reports that the State has already turned over to opposing counsel. In support of its argument, the State invokes the work product privilege — a claim that is fundamentally misplaced because any privilege has been waived and Respondent has ordered that the report be placed in a confidential case file that can only be viewed by Respondent court (and opposing counsel, which already has a copy of the report).
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 27, 2016 02:42 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts