I just returned last night from Indianapolis, where I had the honor and pleasure of arguing on behalf of amici in State v. Brewington; many thanks to the defendant’s lawyer, Michael Sutherlin, for agreeing to split his time with me, and both to Michael and his associate, Sam Adams, for all their help on the […]
Tag Archives | State v. Brewington
Hoosiers
When writing the Brewington amicus brief, which we filed before the Indiana Supreme Court, I used the term “Indianan” in my first draft. Yes, I’d heard of “Hoosier,” but I thought it was a jocular colloquialism, and “Indianan” was the Proper Dignified Lawyerly Way to say it. Boy, was I wrong, as Michael Sutherlin, Dan […]
Indiana Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Oral Arguments in Brewington
Readers of this blog may remember Brewington v. State, an Indiana Court of Appeals decision that I’ve argued is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Brewington asked the Indiana Supreme Court to review the case, and I filed (with the help of local counsel Jim Bopp and Justin McAdam) a pro bono amicus brief supporting that […]
Defendant’s Reply Brief in State v. Brewington
Readers who were interested in the posts about State v. Brewington (the most recent one is here) might also want to see the reply brief. At this point, the case is teed up for the Indiana Supreme Court — they can decide to grant transfer (which means reviewing the Indiana Court of Appeals decision), hold […]
General Verdicts That Might Be Based on Either an Unconstitutional Theory or a Constitutional One
As I note in the post below, the Indiana Attorney General’s office agrees (see its brief) that the State v. Brewington Indiana Court of Appeals decision was unsound. But the AG’s office argues that Brewington’s conviction should still be affirmed. This illustrates a broader issue that I thought was worth briefly discussing, though note that […]
Indiana Attorney General’s Office Agrees: Indiana Supreme Court Should Review the Brewington Case
Readers might recall the Brewington case, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals basically held that harshly criticizing people for their past conduct could constitute the crime of “intimidation.” Daniel Brewington was involved in a contentious child custody dispute; Judge James D. Humphrey ruled against him in this dispute, giving sole custody to Brewington’s wife, […]
State v. Brewington and Figurative Speech
Here’s the last portion of our State v. Brewington amicus brief: II. The Court of Appeals Erred in Concluding that Brewington’s Speech Was Knowingly False, an Error That Will Work Mischief in Future Defamation Cases To the extent that the Court of Appeals defended its decision by casting Brewington’s speech as a knowingly false statement […]
State v. Brewington and the Blackmail Analogy
Here’s the second part of our amicus brief, which deals with the Court of Appeals’ analogy between general threats to harshly criticize someone and blackmail: B. The Court of Appeals’ Blackmail Analogy Is Unsound The Court of Appeals defended its reasoning by analogy to blackmail. 2013 WL 177923, *8. But, while properly crafted blackmail bans […]
Harshly Criticizing Judges (or Others) for Their Past Conduct = Crime?
Last months I blogged about State v. Brewington, an Indiana Court of Appeals decisions that I thought was inconsistent with the First Amendment. I’m pleased to say that today (with the help of local counsel Jim Bopp and Justin McAdam) I filed a pro bono amicus brief urging the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the […]
Indiana Advocacy, Political, or Journalist Groups?
I blogged last week about Brewington v. State (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2013), a decision that strikes me as unconstitutional, and as quite perilous for Indiana speakers: It basically concludes that harshly and repeatedly criticizing someone — in that case, a judge, but the law applies equally to legislators, other government officials, business leaders, […]
Harshly Criticizing Judges (or Others) for Their Past Conduct = Crime?
That’s what Brewington v. State (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2013) appears to hold. The defendant may well have seemed like a potentially dangerous person, and he was also convicted of perjury and other crimes; moreover, the government argued that he threatened violence and not just criticism. But the court’s reasoning, which focused on the […]