In the Indiana Supreme Court decision of Brewington v State, Justice Rush wrote the following, “And Defendant had also demonstrated mental disturbance, volatility, violence, and genuine dangerousness directly to both of his victims during his years-long vendetta against them.” She went on to use the words volatile violent, violence, etc… approximately 20 times in her opinion to help rationalize the Court’s decision to uphold my convictions. A casual reader of the opinion would conclude there must have been substantial evidence to support the claim I demonstrated violence against both Dr. Edward J Connor and Judge James D. Humphrey. Actually there was none. The word violence, or any derivative of the word, appears only four times throughout the course of my criminal trial. Prosecutor Negangard used the word to explain to the jury the “fighting words exception” to the First Amendment. Negangard stated:
“The thrust of the fighting words exception is become whether an objective standard, the words were stated as a personal insult to the hear [sic] and language and (inaudible) likely to provoke a violent reaction.” (Page 506 of trial transcripts)
Negangard uses the word “violent” three times in two sentences during the Prosecutor’s questioning of Judge James D. Humphrey when inquiring about Humphrey’s experience as a judge and former prosecutor. Negangard asked the following to Humphrey:
“In your years as prosecutor have you had to prosecute murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers and violent criminals?”
“In your years of Judge, have you had to sentence violent criminals, murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers and violent criminals?”
There was only one mention of violence that pertained to my behavior during the entire four day criminal trial. It came during my public defender’s questioning of Sheriff Michael Kreinhop, the only Dearborn County Law Enforcement Officer who participated in the investigation. Public Defender Barrett asked the following of Sheriff Kreinhop (Page 410 of transcripts from criminal trial):
MR. BARRETT: Um, your investigation didn't reveal any acts of violence that Mr. Brewington committed against any public officials did it?
SHERIFF KREINHOP: No.
And that’s the evidence against me. There is little doubt why Justice Loretta Rush attacked me by claiming I demonstrated violence against the victims. It would throw any potential First Amendment supporters off the trail. First Amendment Amici like James Bopp, Sheila Kennedy, The Indianapolis Star, and Eugene Volokh wouldn’t think of continuing to support me if Justice Rush claimed I committed acts of violence against Judge Humphrey or Dr. Connor. So Justice Rush lied. Rather than protect the First Amendment, Justice Rush conjured up stories of alleged violence to protect one of her own from being criticized. (It is important to note that Justice Loretta Rush graduated with Judge James D. Humphrey from Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington in 1983. The two also served together, along with the first judge in my divorce, Carl H. Taul, on the Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee in at least 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.) This may not seem like a big deal to many but how can Justice Rush be trusted in any case; especially cases dealing with the death penalty. Albert Einstein said, “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” It’s depressing to think Indiana Supreme Court Justice Loretta Rush believes the First Amendment is a small, inconsequential matter, but how can this Supreme Court Justice be trusted to be fair in any decision coming before Indiana’s high court? I would encourage people to be vigilant and outspoken but Justice Rush would rule that conduct as circumstantial evidence as to obsessive behavior, which can be used by judges and prosecutors to find more “hidden” threats in my writings that the general public is not smart enough to see for themselves. (PLEASE NOTE, THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT’S DECISION ALSO ALLOWS LEGAL GUN OWNSHIP TO BE USED AS A BASIS FOR FEAR TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL HIDDEN THREATS IN CRITICAL SPEECH. FEEL FREE TO CONTACT 2ND AMENDMENT PROPONENTS.) I guess my message to people is to be wary of taking action because Justice Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court have made it possible to label nearly any statement as a hidden threat if accompanied by a history of “obsessive” criticisms of public officials.
Check out the blog post Trial Transcripts from 3/29/12 and do a search on any variation of the word “violence.” If you have the time, read the several hundred page document and try to find any accusation by the prosecution that I threatened violence against anyone. Feel free to review any court transcripts and/or evidence from my 2.5 year divorce to see where there are no allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, or threats of violent behavior. Documents and history can be found on www.danbrewington.blogspot.com and www.danhelpskids.com.