In the criminal case Brewington v State of Indiana, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush made numerous references to the violent history of Dan Brewington in her opinion she authored for the Court. Rush wrote,
“Defendant had also demonstrated mental disturbance, volatility, violence, and genuine dangerousness directly to both of his victims during his years-long vendetta against them.” -Page 2 of Brewington v State of Indiana
Justice Rush wrote Brewington demonstrated violence toward Judge James D. Humphrey and psychologist Dr. Edward J. Connor over the course of Brewington’s “years-long vendetta against them. Any acts of violence against anyone are serious violations of law. A violent act against a judge by someone who lives in a different state usually constitutes a federal crime. Following his convictions and prior to sentencing, the Dearborn County Probation Department prepared a Presentence Investigation Report for the Dearborn County Superior Court II. Page 4 of the Report gives a description of Brewington’s criminal history, which would include any convictions resulting from violent actions against judges. The Report demonstrates that prior to Brewington’s criminal trial in Dearborn County, Brewington’s criminal record consisted of an OVI conviction in Campbell County, Kentucky in 1995-96. As there is no mention of violent behavior of Brewington prior to the opinion authored by Rush, one could only look to Rush’s opinion to find examples of violence Brewington demonstrated against Judge Humphrey. Rush gave the following example of what “reasonable people” in Judge Humphrey’s situation would deem “dangerous”:
“Reasonable people in the Judge’s situation would also view Defendant’s erratic, volatile, and violent courtroom behavior – ‘yell[ing] out things,’ ‘thr[owing] his papers’ and shouting ‘I demand justice in this courtroom,’ and ‘laughing inappropriately,’ Tr. 319-as part of that pattern of escalation.” Page 23 Brewington v State. [Rush later changed “throwing papers” to slamming “piles of books” despite there being no testimony or evidence that Brewington even had “piles of books” during Brewington’s divorce proceedings. It is unclear whether Rush confused the facts or made up the books story.]
And that’s about it for any examples of violent behavior against Judge James D. Humphrey given by Justice Loretta Rush as the divorce hearings were the only place Humphrey and Brewington crossed paths. What Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush found to be a major component to a crime of speech, Judge Humphrey, the "victim" in the case, failed to find to be severe enough to warrant holding Brewington in contempt during a divorce hearing. Rush gave no examples of Brewington acting out violently in the presence of Dr. Connor. Rush wrote how Brewington’s actions were so vile, that Judge Humphrey even had to threaten to hold Brewington in contempt of court in Brewington’s divorce hearing, but Humphrey never did. Rush wrote “reasonable people” in Judge Humphrey’s situation would view Brewington’s actions as violent behavior toward Judge Humphrey and the basis of a criminal intimidation conviction despite the fact Judge Humphrey did not deem the conduct to be worthy of holding Brewington in contempt of Court.
Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush has effectively left Brewington without the ability to obtain legal counsel, or in the least, find an attorney that can present an effective case to the Supreme Court of the United States of America because of the need to demonstrate that many of Rush’s conclusions are drawn from information that appears nowhere on the record of the case. Any attorney that would suggest Rush made up the content in her decision would face immediately disciplinary action if admitted to practice in the State of Indiana. Now Dan Brewington has to defend allegations of violence against the victims, which were never raised during trial. Brewington never had the chance to defend himself against allegations of violent actions because no one ever alleged Brewington committed any acts of violence prior to Rush’s decision. Hopefully the United States Supreme Court has a little more respect for the United States Constitution than Chief Justice Loretta Rush and the Indiana Supreme Court.