bail hearing in Indiana

2015Co. v. Porter Superior Court, 274 Ind. 408, 418-19 , 412 N.E.2d 748 (1980) (where our supreme court acknowledges that a bail hearing amounts to a mini-trial, and includes the presentation of evidence that may or may not be admissible at the later trial). [26] Continuing on the path of allowing the presentation of incriminating and exculpatory evidence during bail proceedings, our supreme court reaffirmed in Phillips that the appellant in a bail hearing must be afforded all constitutional protections guaranteed to the criminally accused: the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses in h

2015Co. v. Porter Superior Court, 412 N.E.2d 748, 418-19 (Ind. 1980) (where our supreme court acknowledges that a bail hearing amounts to a mini-trial, and includes the presentation of evidence that may or may not be admissible at the later trial). [26] Continuing on the path of allowing the presentation of incriminating and exculpatory evidence during bail proceedings, our supreme court reaffirmed in Phillips that the appellant in a bail hearing must be afforded all constitutional protections guaranteed to the criminally accused: the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses in his defense

2020Satterfield v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1271, 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

2016The Indiana Supreme Court has stated that “the right to adequate and effective cross-examination is fundamental and essential to a fair trial [and] includes the right to ask pointed and relevant questions in an attempt to undermine the opposition’s case, as well as the opportunity to test a witness’s memory, perception and truthfulness.” State v. Owings, 622 N.E.2d 948, 950 (Ind. 1993); see also Berkman, 976 N.E.2d at 77 .

2016When the presumption is not strong.” Fry v. State, 990 N.E.2d 429, 434-435 (Ind. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [20] While Williams may have questioned Phillips at the bail hearing with the goal of showing that the proof of his guilt was not evident and the presumption not strong, in order to prevail on his petition to let bail it was necessary for him to challenge the accuracy of Phillips’s testimony or undermine her credibility.

2016The Indiana Supreme Court has stated that “the right to adequate and effective cross-examination is fundamental and essential to a fair trial [and] includes the right to ask pointed and relevant questions in an attempt to undermine the opposition’s case, as well as the opportunity to test a witness’s memory, perception and truthfulness.” State v. Owings, 622 N.E.2d 948, 950 (Ind. 1993); see also Berkman, 976 N.E.2d at 77 .

2016See Berkman, 976 N.E.2d at 78 (noting the defendant did not explain how he was prevented from pursuing lines of questioning fully or how they would have been pursued any differently at trial and holding “that the motive for the discovery deposition, as well as how the deposition actually played out, was similar enough to that of trial testimony to satisfy the requirements of Evidence Rule 804(b)(1)”).

2013Presumably the state is in a better position to present to the court the evidence upon which it intends to rely.” Id. at 720; cf. Simpson, 85 P.3d at 487 (“Indeed, apart from the presumption in favor of bail, the State is in a position superior to that of the accused to produce evidence during a hearing because it already will have presented evidence in the process of charging the person.”); Purcell, 268 Ill.Dec. 429 , 778 N.E.2d at 700 (“As a practical matter, the State is in a better position to present such evidence during a bail hearing.

2013Also, one of the primary benefits of bail — to the defendant — is that it “permits the unhampered preparation of a defense.” Bozovichar, 230 Ind. at 361 , 103 N.E.2d at 681 ; cf. Purcell, 268 Ill.Dec. 429 , 778 N.E.2d at 700 (“The accused, on the other hand, is often in a very poor position to gather and present evidence at a bail hearing, as he is incarcerated and facing charges in a criminal proceeding only recently initiated against him.”).

2013Presumably the state is in a better position to present to the court the evidence upon which it intends to rely.” Id. at 720 ; cf. Simpson, 85 P.3d at 487 (“Indeed, apart from the presumption in favor of bail, the State is in a position superior to that of the accused to produce evidence during a hearing because it already will have presented evidence in the process of charging the person.”); Purcell, 778 N.E.2d at 700 (“As a practical matter, the State is in a better position to present such evidence during a bail hearing.

2013Presumably the state is in a better position to present to the court the evidence upon which it intends to rely.” Id. at 720; cf. Simpson, 85 P.3d at 487 (“Indeed, apart from the presumption in favor of bail, the State is in a position superior to that of the accused to produce evidence during a hearing because it already will have presented evidence in the process of charging the person.”); Purcell, 268 Ill.Dec. 429 , 778 N.E.2d at 700 (“As a practical matter, the State is in a better position to present such evidence during a bail hearing.

1988See also Cambridge v. State (1981), Ind., 428 N.E.2d 1252 , (guilty plea which is withdrawn cannot be alluded to at trial); Busch v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 173 , 150 N.E. 58 , (guilty plea in a city court cannot later be offered into evidence in an appeal to circuit court); State v. Williams (1975), 115 N.H. 437 , 343 A.2d 29 , (testimony in a bail hearing is inadmissible at trial due to the strong policy to avoid unnecessary deprivations of liberty since the purpose of the hearing is to insure appearance at trial; United States v. Inmon (3rd Cir.1977), 568 F.2d 326 , (defendant's pretrial hea