On February 24, 2014 the Indiana Court of Appeals took a stand against the Government's repeated attempts to use police "course of investigation" testimony at trial. Traditionally, at trial police would testify to what they personally observed and then testify, "Mr. Smith told me he saw the Defendant walking away from the crime scene." Good Trial Attorneys would say, "Objection. That statement is hearsay - it is an out of court statement made by a person who is not on the stand. And that statement should not be admitted." The Government lawyers would respond, "It is not for the truth of the matter asserted, it is simply to show the jury why the officer went and investigated the Defendant. It is merely 'course of investigation' testimony."
Despite this type of testimony clearly being hearsay and clearly being harmful to a client's right to confront and cross examine all witnesses against him, Judges routinely let this type of testimony come into trial. That was until September 12, 2012 when a case named Kindred v. State of Indiana was published. The Court of Appeals in Kindred put a stop to this type of testimony. And rightfully so. If the Government wants to put a man on trial and put him in jail, make the witnesses against him come to court and testify, and let the Defendant cross examine these witnesses - which is exactly what is guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights and the Indiana Constitution. Don't allow testimony to come in from other witnesses through the police.
Despite Kindred being good law, this type of testimony is still going on in a bit more secretive fashion. That is the issue in the February 24, 2014 case of Blount v. State of Indiana. In Blount the police officer testified that witnesses, who did not appear at trial, gave the nickname of the Defendant to the Police officer and then subsequently came into contact and arrested Defendant. The judge would not let the officer state exactly what the witnesses told him, but did let the officer testify that that the witnesses gave him a nickname and then the officer went and apprehended the Defendant. So while the judge prevented the Officer from testify as to what these witnesses told him exactly, it was obvious that what the witnesses told the officer led the Officer to the Defendant.
The Court in Blount reversed this conviction. The Court held that this was hearsay, it was wrongly admitted by the trial judge and the testimony, even if it was not for the truth of the matter asserted was highly prejudicial to the Defendant. This case reaffirmed the right for a defendant to confront and cross examine a witness against them. And that this right cannot be short circuited by the Government saying, "It is not testimonial, it is merely course of investigation testimony."
Remember, fight for your rights. If you don't, no one else will. If you have been charged with a crime in the State of Indiana please do your best to hire a tried and true trial lawyer. Not someone who is a "dump truck lawyer" - a lawyer that will dump you with a quick guilty plea. If you or someone you care about has been charged with a crime please contact Attorney Lopez at (317) 632-3642 or through email.
