"Aaron Negangard successfully prosecuted Daniel Brewington who was alleged to be a threat to Judge Humphrey and his family." Section 8(a)
In the closing arguments of the Brewington trial Negangard argued Humphrey shouldn't have to bear the burden or expense of pursuing civil action against Brewington. Negangard advocated on behalf of Humphrey that the criminal prosecution of Brewington was the appropriate remedy to protect Judge Humphrey's reputation and character rather than civil action.
Garner also raised the issue of how bond was used in this particular case.
"Judge Humphrey acquiesed or participated in a procedure employed by Mr. Negangard to use bond as a tool of law enforcement to obtain statements from co-defendants Mr. Negangard would have been otherwise unable to attain." Section 8(b) of the Motion.
"Judge Humphrey ceded control of who is released on bond in the Acapulco Cases to Mr. Negangard" Section 8(c) of the Motion.
Garner noted that the denial of his client's bond reduction came just hours after Humphrey and Negangard both attended the Oral Arguments in Dan Brewington's Appeal in Indianapolis.
The consitutional right to a reasonable bond was also an issue in the Brewington case.
| This story appeared in the Dearborn County Paper Tuesday, December 4, 2012. |  |
 |
 |
| Written by Staff |
| Monday, December 03, 2012 9:13 PM |
Click here to read entire motionA motion has been filed by Lawrenceburg attorney Doug Garner requesting Dearborn-Ohio Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey remove himself from the case of Marie and Adolfo Lopez.The Lopezes are facing charges of corrupt business influence, forger and perjury following an investigation by Indiana State Excise Police. They and others allegedly did not pay enough sales tax to the State of Indiana. According to the motion for removal filed by Garner Monday, Dec. 3, “Judge James D. Humphrey because he is biased in favor of the Dearborn County Prosecutor, Aaron Negangard,” noting “The issue is not whether the judge believes himself to be impartial, but whether a reasonable person aware of all the circumstances would question the judge’s impartiality. In re Wilkins, 780 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. 2003).” There is a perception to “reasonable minds” that Humphrey’s ability to give the Lopezes due process is impaired because “(a) Aaron Negangard successfully prosecuted Daniel Brewington who was alleged to be a threat to Judge Humphrey and his family. (b) Judge Humphrey acquiesced or participated in a procedure employed by Mr. Negangard to use bond as a tool of law enforcement to obtain statements from co-defendants Mr. Negangard would have been otherwise unable to obtain. (c) Judge Humphrey ceded control of who is released on bond in the Acapulco Cases to Mr. Negangard.” Garner also notes in the motion it “is belated because on November 28,2012 counsel reviewed the Chronological Case Summaries for the co-defendants and discovered the number of co-defendants who may have been forced to waive their 5th Amendment rights to secure their release from jail. Counsel could not have discovered this information with due diligence because the state has not produced copies of co-defendants statements.” |
Last Updated on Monday, December 03, 2012 11:00 PM
The story was also reported on Eagle 99.3 News blog.
|
Thank God some locals are finally standing up against the corruption
ReplyDelete