Indianapolis Prosecutor Refiles DUI Charges In Bisard Case

[machete]

To paraphrase one of my favorite law professors, you only get so many mistakes before it looks intentional.

Let's have a grand jury tell us there was no cover up. I believe questions remain unanswered.

with an independent prosecutor... you available???

 

[Kirk Freeman]

you available???

My prosecutor daze are behind me . . . way behind now.

Should have stayed in 10 years so I could carry everywhere, no?

 

[E5RANGER375]

so will the FOP now stop paying his legal defense?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No, it is my understanding that the FOP is paying.

Is this not contractual? Is he not entitled to it?

 

[E5RANGER375]

No, it is my understanding that the FOP is paying.

Is this not contractual? Is he not entitled to it?

they said before that they wouldnt have done it if the DUI charges wouldnt have been dropped. so thats why I wonder now, with them not just adding the DUI charges but refiling them, will he lose his defense fund? i dont think good cops should have to pay for this scums legal defense.

 

[Denny347]

The re-file came too late. We voted last month and just had a re-vote last week. There cannot be a 3rd vote and it is pretty much set in stone now. However, I do not pretend to be an expert in the lodge bi-laws so I cannot say 100% that if the charges do stick that there will not be some problems...I just don't know. We are navigating uncharted waters here.

 

[j706]

He wont have to be re-booked he will just get a court date. There will never be a OWI conviction. Political move by a new prosecutor. Horse and pony show.

Bingo!

 

[mrjarrell]

Abdul has a good look on the prosecutors reasoning for refiling. It's interesting, but deeply legalistic. The charges might just stick.

Second Time Around | Indiana Barrister

 

[Tactical Dave]

The re-file came too late. We voted last month and just had a re-vote last week. There cannot be a 3rd vote and it is pretty much set in stone now. However, I do not pretend to be an expert in the lodge bi-laws so I cannot say 100% that if the charges do stick that there will not be some problems...I just don't know. We are navigating uncharted waters here.

You would think that there would be a clause that if you were charged with a crime that you were then up the creek. One would think that the FOP would just pay if you got sued because say a person jumped out in front of your car during a chase and you hit them..........


I can sadly understand though why many would want to vote for the FOP to cover everything..... not saying at all that that happend in this case.... just sayin.

 

[Donnelly]

Abdul has a good look on the prosecutors reasoning for refiling. It's interesting, but deeply legalistic. The charges might just stick.

I wouldn't count on it.

I pulled this link up just by searching "indiana statute+blood draw".

Blood draw results – failure to follow statutory procedure Indiana Criminal Law

Also check I.C. 9-30-6-6 subsection j.

Smells like horse to me, but he will probably escape the OWI charges.

 

[mrjarrell]

Perhaps, but the new prosecutor is basing it on a court ruling that took a slightly different path. It'll be up to the judge as to whether a different ruling on that code stands or what.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Good !

I think the whole idea of only certain hospitals being court certified to draw blood is BS .

Was the person who drew the blood certified to do so in the state of IN ?

Yes , good , then WTF is the courts' problem ?

Guys the new pros is a politician. This re-filing is purely political. It sucks, I know, but the law is quite clear. The blood draw was done incorrectly and thus should be thrown out.
Keep in mind what many of you are saying. You're implying that because of the nature of the crime, the law should be subverted with good intentions. Well guess what, I ave plenty of of good intentions that include beating abusive husbands, child molesters, and rapists in the head with a hammer. However, the law says regardless of how noble my intentions are, it's still not legal...
... if you're caught

 

[Kirk Freeman]

However, the law says regardless of how noble my intentions are, it's still not legal...... if you're caught

As to the blood draw, it is an open question which should be decided by a judge rather than Brizzi skipping down the hall and dismissing the B felony.

Curry has case law on his side that would allow the blood test. We shall see what the judge does and then what the Court of Appeals does after that.

 

[mrjarrell]

The DUI charges are going to be decided on what "May", "Shall" and "Must" mean, as happens many times in court cases. My guess is that the the person who drew the blood is qualified to do so for a vast array of circumstances and that this may well stick.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Its a political move. He knows the charges wont stick, and they don't have to for him to look good. Anyone judge looking into the "may" will surly know what the current standard is for blood drawls . Commanded and shall are hardly used in criminal code. Arrest warrants and OWI are the only two I can think of off the top of my head.