“[T]he Court of Appeals set aside the conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence. We have accepted jurisdiction to reinstate the judgment.”

John Kindley — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:14:50 +0000

For possession of marijuana. The criminalization of which is itself criminal.

The Indiana Supreme Court seems to be reinstating convictions a hell of a lot lately.

In a just criminal justice system, a system which required of judges the same consensus we require of jurors, an “acquittal” at any step of the appellate process would end the defendant’s Jeopardy.

It’s only natural for judges employed by the State to believe in the State and its works more than your average bear. I wonder whether, by the same psychological logic, judges invested with more power by the State are even bigger believers than judges invested with less.

Consensus – People v. State

“[T]he Court of Appeals set aside the conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence. We have accepted jurisdiction to reinstate the judgment.”