Posted by: DawnMarie White (DMWatLaw) | April 24, 2013

Indiana v. X**

I recently conducted a jury trial in Lake County, Indiana with my friend and colleague, Jonathan C. Little of Saeed & Little. I really like working with Jon. He is as serious about his client’s rights as I am. We both put a lot of work and emotion into this particular case. For me, the defendant is a relative of a friend from law school. When she approached me and subsequently had her relative approach me, I knew that the stakes were high. He was facing three counts: A felony child molest, B felony incest, and C felony child molest.

I first worked to reduce his bond and get his family to bail him out of jail. Then, I decided to bring Jon in on the case. He previously brought me in on a similar case that ended in a plea. We work well together, and he gets my passion for criminal defense – because he has it, too.

After almost a year of reviewing over a thousand pages of health care, Department of Children Services, and school documents, we finally went to trial. We carefully and sometimes tediously plucked out inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s statements. We began referring to her statements as an “ever-changing story” because, well, it was ever-changing.

We elicited testimony from her where she misstated what she did or did not tell various investigators. She testified that she told lies to get what she wants. She admitted that she had made the same allegations with fewer details previously but no one believed her. Family members testified that she was angry with the defendant.

We prepared for “The Jersey Shore” defense. In a few of her statements, the alleged victim claimed that she was wearing a GTL (“Gym Tan Laundry”) shirt in 2006, 2007, or 2008. We had a certified copy of the New York Times’ article explaining what GTL means and stating that the original air date was in 2009. This means it is impossible for her to have worn a Jersey Shore GTL shirt in 2006 or even 2008. It was small, but meaningful inconsistencies like this coupled with her own statements about telling lies, and testimony that she was mad at the defendant that led the jury to a not guilty verdict.

**I have decided not to publish my client’s name in this posting out of respect to his privacy. The allegations alone have put a scarlet letter on him.

Unfortunately, this case doesn’t end with the jury’s not guilty verdict. Read about the outside the courtroom consequences of this case in my post, “Is There Meaning in ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty?'”



  1. […] a recent post, I discussed a case I refer to as Indiana v. X. That case didn’t end with the jury’s […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: