Eagle News Reports on Brewington Decision
Last Updated: January 21, 2013 8:24:16 am
The entire article is below but you can also click on the address below.
The entire article is below but you can also click on the address below.
|
|
|
Dan Brewington
file photo
|
Dan Brewington took to the Internet to
voice his displeasure with how Dearborn Circuit Court Judge James D. Humphrey
handled his 2008 divorce and child custody case. He also partly blamed court
appointed custody evaluator Dr. Edward Connor in the events chronicled at his Blogger site
and www.DanHelpsKids.com.
Brewington was eventually charged and
arrested for some of the jabs he wrote. During a 2011 jury trial presided over
by Judge Brian Hill from Rush County, the Cincinnati Ohio resident was
convicted of Intimidation of a Judge, Attempt to Commit Obstruction of Justice,
Perjury, and two lesser counts of Intimidation. Dearborn-Ohio County Prosecutor
Aaron Negangard had convinced jurors that Brewington’s criticism went beyond
political speech and crossed the line to “fighting words.”
Following the conviction, Brewington
appealed his conviction to the Indiana Court of Appeals, arguing five points:
the court allegedly abused its discretion by impaneling an anonymous jury, that
Hill erred by admitting a custody evaluation and a divorce decree into
evidence, the intimidation and obstruction of justice convictions were double
jeopardy, whether the evidence was sufficient for convictions, and that the
court’s final jury instructions were erroneous.
Oral arguments were held last November.
On Thursday, January 17, the Court of Appeals issued a ruling vacating
Brewington’s convictions for the two lesser intimidation charges. Those related
to Judge Humphrey’s wife, Heidi, and Dr. Connor. The Connor intimidation
conviction violated the double jeopardy rule, Judge Carr L. Darden wrote in the
decision.
“The jury instructions directed the
jury to consider the same evidentiary facts to support both convictions).
Consequently, both convictions cannot stand. When two convictions contravene
double jeopardy principles, ‘we vacate the conviction with less severe penal
consequences,’” Darden wrote.
The court also agreed with Brewington
that his urging blog readers to send letters about his case to Heidi Humphrey,
who serves as an Indiana Supreme Court Ethics and Professionalism Advisor, did
not cross the line to intimidation.
“He did not describe her in a negative
light or encourage anyone to do anything other than write letters to her, as a
purported public official, about his divorce case,” believed Darden. “Although
we do not condone Brewington’s unjustifiable and bad faith attempt to drag Mrs.
Humphrey into his divorce litigation, his actions in relation to Mrs. Humphrey
do not meet the definition of a threat for purposes of the intimidation
statute.”
Despite two of the five convictions
being thrown out, Prosecutor Negangard says he’s still pleased with the appeals
court decision that doesn’t alter the bottom line: Brewington’s time in prison.
“The Court of Appeals has affirmed the
decisions of the trial court. The only part that was reversed is of no
significance since the sentence has been upheld. It involves some complexities
that are unique to Indiana… …This is a victory for justice and our criminal
justice system,” Negangard said of the ruling.
With the help of his family, Brewington
has continued to blog from prison. He has entries on his blog site as recent as
January 6.
LINKS:
Dan, I believe that you were rightfully objecting to bad court decisions. I hope you get an appeal to the Indiana supreme court.
ReplyDelete