A. Notice of Appeal – October 24, 2011 – Filed by Bryan E. Barrett, Brewington’s Trial Attorney
1. “Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 11, the Clerk of Dearborn Superior Court No.2 is requested to transcribe, certify, and file with the Clerk of Dearborn County Courts the proceedings or hearings of record, …
1. After writing in a letter “I will value, respect and request your insight and opinion on issues to raise in the appeal…” without even speaking to Brewington, he arbitrarily reduces the appealable issues by limiting the information that he is even going to review for the appeal.
2. The last paragraph says “If you cannot read or write and are reviewing this letter…”.
3. Brewington’s entire case was about his writings on the internet. Apparently Mr. Stratman didn’t know anything about Daniel Brewington’s case and yet he had a “verbal discussion” with Barbara Ruwe, Court Reporter for Judge Sally Blankenship, and somehow a decision was made to ignore the directives in the filed Notice of Appeal.
4. According to Mr. Stratman’s letter he knew very little or almost nothing about the Brewington case and yet according to Ms. Ruwe decided that there was no need to have ALL of Brewington’s records in order to prepare an appeal.
5. Common sense might tell a person to get everything that was requested and then disregard what was not deemed needed. Mr. Stratman seemed to do the reverse. He decided what was needed even though he admitted in the letter to Brewington that he didn’t know anything about the case.
6. In November and December Brewington still thought that all of the hearings were to be included in the transcripts because that was what the Notice of Appeal asked for.
7. There are no other written documents according to the certified CCS that the Notice of Appeal filed on October 24, 2011 was ever changed.
C. Brewington’s letter to Jeffrey Stratman – November 24, 2011
1. I am not comfortable being represented by a Dearborn County attorney assigned out of Judge Sally Blankenship’s office since, she had already recused herself in regards to my case, citing conflict of interest, after setting my bond at $600,000.
2. I want all appealable issues preserved so they may be heard at the federal court level if all state appeals are exhausted. Brewington wrote this before he even knew about the changes to the Notice of Appeal discussed and decided on as per Stratman’s and Ruwe’s conversation.
D. Request for Public Records. January 12, 2012 – Sue Brewington’s request.
1. Request made for all audio so the written transcripts could be checked for accuracy.
E. Order to Release the requested audio and 2 pieces of evidence. January 12, 2012
1. Judge Brian Hill released all of the material that Sue Brewington requested. Then he ordered that if she shared or published any of the material she may be held in contempt of court.
2. Sue Brewington was not pleased with the contempt information but was relieved that they would finally have a complete record of Dan Brewington’s entire case.
F. Finding out that we would not be getting the transcripts from every hearing as per the filed Notice of Appeal. Around January 24, 2012
G. Motion to Grant an Extension for the transcripts, filed by Barbara Ruwe, Judge Sally Blankenship’s (Judge who set Dan’s bail at $600,000 and then recused herself because of conflict of interest issues), Court reporter. After waiting for the transcripts until January 24, 2011 we find Ms. Ruwe asking for a 90 day extension to finish what the Notice of Appeal asked for on October 24, 2011. That would have made it impossible to start on the appeal for a total of 180 days after the Notice of Appeal was filed. Filed January 25, 2012 with the Court of Appeals.
1. Ms. Ruwe stated that the only transcripts that Jeffrey Stratman requested were the Trial and the Sentencing Hearing. “Through verbal discussion” they arbitrarily changed the Notice of Appeal instructions that cited Indiana Appellate Rule 11 and that is all she prepared.
2. She writes in the extension request “On January 20, 2012, … the transcript was complete and a bill for the remainder due”.
3. “On January 23, 2012, I was prepared to file the transcript of the jury trial and the sentencing hearing (not what was requested in the Notice of Appeal) but had not received the balance due for the transcript”.
4. Note: January 20, 2012 was a Friday and January 23, 2012 was the following Monday, of course no payment was received over the weekend and the transcripts that she had “finished” were not complete.
5. She asked for and received in writing a request for additional transcripts made by Brewington’s appellate attorneys.
H. The transcripts for two more hearings are received in less than two weeks but the extension was filed with the Court of Appeals.
I. Attorneys accept the transcript as complete but reserve the right to request the missing hearings.
J. The Court Reporter’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Transcript is granted, in part, to and including March 12, 2012. Margret G. Robb, Chief Judge. Found on Indiana Clerk of Court: Online Docket Search Results.
K. Petition for Bail Pending Appeal – Filed January 24, 2012
L. Corrected Memorandum in Support of Petition for Bail Pending Appeal – Filed January 31, 2012.
M. Order Denying Petition for Bail Pending Appeal. – Filed February 2, 2012
N. Amended Order to Release the Audio, February 2, 2012
1. “Subsequent to the issuance of those two Orders, the Court has discovered that no audio recordings of the Grand Jury Proceedings for February 28, 2011, March 1, 2011 and March 2, 2011 were admitted into evidence in this cause, therefore, these audio recordings are not a record in these proceedings.” Sue’s Brewington’s response.
2. “The final Pretrial Conference/Bond Reduction Hearing which had originally been set on July 18, 2011 was continued on the State’s Motion and no hearing took place on the date. If a telephonic conference with counsel was held on that date, it was merely an effort to reschedule and find an agreeable date and no recordings were made. Therefore, no audio recording exists for July 18, 2011.” Sue Brewington’s response with attachments one, two, and three.
a. The hearing was in two parts: Bond Reduction Hearing and Final Pretrial Hearing.
b. F. Aaron Negangard, Prosecutor, Dearborn County, on June 28, 2011, filed a Motion to Continue the bond reduction hearing, the reason being, Shane McHenry, who is scheduled to testify is unavailable.
c. As of July 18, 2011, according to the certified CCS record, Judge Hill had not ruled on Negangard’s Motion. Judge Hill began the “hearing that didn’t take place” by taking care of the Bond Reduction Continuance. Judge Hill stated that he telephonically communicated his intention to grant the Order to Continue the bond reduction hearing until August 3, 2011, asking the attorney’s if they would be available. After taking care of that business Judge Hill went on with the pretrial hearing portion for the day. The court reporter was present and the entry in the certified CCS is as follows: Final Pre-Trial Hearing; Def W/Atty B Barrett; State by J Kisor.
d. This hearing took place in the Dearborn County Circuit Courtroom on the 2nd floor of the Courthouse, Judge Humphrey’s Courtroom. Sue Brewington was present along with at least 4 other people that would sign an affidavit stating that they were there.
O. Another Public Records Request, February 14, 2012. This time for the written Transcripts for the Arraignment Hearing, March 11, 2011, the June 17, 2011 hearing, and the July 18, 2011 hearing, that Judge Hill’s amended order says doesn’t exist because no hearing took place.
Timeline written and submitted by Sue Brewington 2/22/2012