Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
In the Matter of Robert James Hardy
Indiana Supreme Court · 2026-06-23
This case was an attorney discipline action against Robert James Hardy Jr., who served as DeKalb County’s chief deputy prosecutor and made repeated unfounded accusations that a judge and local attorney were in a sexual relationship and that the judge showed favoritism, along with disparaging remarks about groups based on race, disability, and socioeconomic status. The Indiana Supreme Court found that Hardy violated Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(g), 4.4(a), and 8.2(a) by engaging in this conduct while acting in a professional capacity. The court imposed a 180-day suspension with automatic reinstatement, clarifying that Rule 8.4(g) applies to statements manifesting bias or prejudice in professional settings to preserve public trust in the legal system but does not extend to purely private expression.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
In the Matter of Robert James Hardy
Indiana Supreme Court · 2026-06-23
The case involved attorney discipline proceedings against Robert James Hardy Jr., a former chief deputy prosecutor in Indiana, for making repeated unfounded accusations about a judge and local attorney having a sexual relationship and showing favoritism in court, along with making disparaging remarks about various groups including Romani people, poor people, autistic individuals, and Native Americans. The Indiana Supreme Court found that Hardy violated Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(g), 4.4(a), and 8.2(a) by engaging in this conduct while acting in a professional capacity. The court clarified that Rule 8.4(g) applies to lawyers' speech or actions manifesting bias or prejudice based on personal characteristics only when undertaken professionally, as opposed to purely private expression, in order to preserve public confidence in the impartiality of the legal system. The court imposed a suspension of 180 days with automatic reinstatement.
criminal lawfree speechcivil rightsprocedure
In the Matter of Robert James Hardy
Indiana Supreme Court · 2026-06-23
This case involved attorney discipline proceedings against Robert James Hardy Jr., who served as DeKalb County's chief deputy prosecutor and made repeated unfounded accusations that a judge and local attorney were in a sexual relationship and showed favoritism in court, along with disparaging remarks about groups including Romani people, poor people, individuals with autism, and Native Americans. The Indiana Supreme Court held that Hardy violated Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(g) by manifesting bias or prejudice while acting in a professional capacity, in addition to violating Rules 4.4(a) and 8.2(a), and imposed a 180-day suspension from practice with automatic reinstatement. The court reasoned that Rule 8.4(g) applies to conduct in a professional capacity to preserve public confidence in the legal system's impartiality, while clarifying that it does not extend to purely private expression or lawful public debate. The decision followed review of the hearing officer's findings and the Disciplinary Commission's petition for a harsher sanction.
free speechcivil rightscriminal law
Tervarus L. Gary v. State of Indiana
Indiana Supreme Court · 2026-04-09
The case involved Tervarus L. Gary, who was arrested and placed in a jail cell where he later discovered a small canister of pepper spray in his pocket. After alerting officers to its presence, Gary did not immediately surrender the item and instead attempted to negotiate for a phone call and transfer to a different cell, resulting in his conviction under a statute prohibiting incarcerated individuals from possessing materials capable of causing bodily injury. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that even if an arrestee involuntarily brings such an item into a facility, the failure to relinquish it at the earliest reasonable opportunity constitutes a voluntary act that can support criminal liability, as shown by sufficient evidence of Gary's non-cooperation.
criminal law
Tervarus L. Gary v. State of Indiana
Indiana Supreme Court · 2026-04-09
The case involved Tervarus L. Gary, who was arrested and placed in a jail cell while unknowingly carrying a small canister of pepper spray in his pocket. Upon discovering it hours later, Gary alerted officers but refused their initial demands to surrender the item, instead attempting to negotiate for a phone call and a different cell; he was charged and convicted under an Indiana statute that prohibits incarcerated individuals from possessing materials capable of causing bodily injury. On appeal, Gary argued that his possession was involuntary because he had been brought into the facility against his will. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that even involuntary entry with prohibited material can result in liability if the individual fails to relinquish it at the earliest reasonable opportunity, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Gary had not done so here.
criminal law
Marvin Moyers v. State of Indiana
Indiana Supreme Court · 2026-03-20
The case involved Marvin Moyers, who was convicted of both Level 3 and Level 4 felony criminal confinement based on a single incident where he confined a victim using a deadly weapon and inflicting moderate bodily injury. The Indiana Supreme Court held that these convictions violated substantive double jeopardy principles under state law because the criminal confinement statute defines a single offense with varying enhancements. Applying the Powell test for multiple violations of the same statute, the court determined that the record supported only one continuous act of confinement, leading to the reversal of the lesser conviction and remand for an amended sentencing order.
criminal lawprocedure