IN - James Chadwell II, 42, arrested after girl 9, found in his home, Lafayette, 19 Apr 2021 #3

[FrostedGlass]

Update:

09/20/2021 = Hearing Scheduling Activity
Jury Trial originally scheduled on 10/19/2021 at 8:30 AM was rescheduled to 12/07/2021 at 8:30 AM. Reason: Court's Own Motion.

09/20/2021 = Hearing Scheduling Activity
Pretrial Conference scheduled for 11/12/2021 at 8:30 AM.

09/20/2021 = Order Issued
STATUS FORM
Noticed: Harrington, Patrick K
Noticed: Hughes, Shay Justin
Noticed: Corum, Sandra
Order Signed: 09/17/2021

11/12/2021 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 11/12/2021 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Meyer, Steven P

12/07/2021 = Jury Trial
Session: 08/10/2021 8:30 AM, Rescheduled
Session: 08/17/2021 8:30 AM, Rescheduled
Session: 08/18/2021 8:30 AM, Rescheduled
Session: 10/19/2021 8:30 AM, Rescheduled
Session: 12/07/2021 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Meyer, Steven P

 

[minazoe]

can someone decipher all this looks like everything moved up again? mOO

 

[Yemelyan]

Looks like the date got moved again and this time due to the "court's own motion," i.e. the judge himself needed to move it, this was not based on a motion from Chadwell's attorneys or the prosecutors.

Likely just due to scheduling conflict that the judge has or a congested court schedule.

The judge in this case (Steven P. Meyer) is the judge of Tippecanoe County's superior court 2 - he hears not only major criminal cases but family law matters, plenary and torts. So it's a busy docket. Source: Superior Court 2 | Tippecanoe County, IN

 

[FrostedGlass]

Interesting update today:

10/12/2021 = Notice to Court Filed
Notice of Intent to Introduce Lab Report
Filed By: State of Indiana

10/12/2021 = Discovery Filed
Supplemental Discovery 10.12.21.pdf
Filed By: State of Indiana

10/12/2021 = Notice to Court Filed
Defendant's Demand For Cross-Examination
Filed By: Chadwell, James Brian II

11/12/2021 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 11/12/2021 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Meyer, Steven P

12/07/2021 = Jury Trial
Session: 12/07/2021 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Meyer, Steven P

 

[Yemelyan]

Interesting update today:

10/12/2021 = Notice to Court Filed
Notice of Intent to Introduce Lab Report
Filed By: State of Indiana

10/12/2021 = Discovery Filed
Supplemental Discovery 10.12.21.pdf
Filed By: State of Indiana

10/12/2021 = Notice to Court Filed
Defendant's Demand For Cross-Examination
Filed By: Chadwell, James Brian II

11/12/2021 = Pretrial Conference
Session: 11/12/2021 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Meyer, Steven P

12/07/2021 = Jury Trial
Session: 12/07/2021 8:30 AM,
Officer: Meyer, Steven P

I am not a lawyer but I think this is a procedural motion that the defense must make if they want to cross-examine the person who prepared the lab report. I believe this type of notice to the court is required under IN law: 2017 Indiana Code :: TITLE 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: ARTICLE 36. PRETRIAL NOTICES, MOTIONS, AND PROCEDURES :: CHAPTER 11. Laboratory Reports :: 35-36-11-3. Defendant's demand for cross-examination

But I could be wrong! It is, however, a sign that things are moving along in the case IMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I am not a lawyer but I think this is a procedural motion that the defense must make if they want to cross-examine the person who prepared the lab report. I believe this type of notice to the court is required under IN law: 2017 Indiana Code :: TITLE 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: ARTICLE 36. PRETRIAL NOTICES, MOTIONS, AND PROCEDURES :: CHAPTER 11. Laboratory Reports :: 35-36-11-3. Defendant's demand for cross-examination

But I could be wrong! It is, however, a sign that things are moving along in the case IMO.

Thanks. I don't remember seeing that demand on any of the cases I've followed.

 

[minazoe]

10/12/2021 = Notice to Court Filed
Defendant's Demand For Cross-Examination
Filed By: Chadwell, James Brian II

what is this?

 

[MistyWaters]

10/12/2021 = Notice to Court Filed
Defendant's Demand For Cross-Examination
Filed By: Chadwell, James Brian II

what is this?

Yemelyan’s explanation just above seems reasonable to me.

 

[minazoe]

does it mean Chadwell wants to testify? oooh of course he does..so predictable..he's a little drama queen and wants to take the stage.

mOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I can’t really understand why this is going to trial at all.
This child was found captive in his basement, beaten, assaulted, bitten by his dog, etc. Surely a plea deal could have been cobbled out and saved this child from going through this trial.
The prosecution holds all the cards, they could have demanded a harsh harsh sentence. So which side didn’t want to bargain?

 

[minazoe]

I find it very easy to imagine that this is the defense side. JBC wants to drag this out..things are going to get ugly..this is my opinion only but I believe JBC wants a chance to see the pained parents , the crying victims, he wants to hear his actions broadcasted in a courtroom, the details..all of it for his own enjoyment.

none of this stuff affects the outcome in a positive way for him, so this is all about him wanting to testify on a stage..mOO

 

[MistyWaters]

does it mean Chadwell wants to testify? oooh of course he does..so predictable..he's a little drama queen and wants to take the stage.

mOO

No I really doubt the defence’s intent to cross-examine a witness involved in lab work is indicative of JC testifying.

 

[Alethea]

I can’t really understand why this is going to trial at all.
This child was found captive in his basement, beaten, assaulted, bitten by his dog, etc. Surely a plea deal could have been cobbled out and saved this child from going through this trial.
The prosecution holds all the cards, they could have demanded a harsh harsh sentence. So which side didn’t want to bargain?

Sometimes the state doesn't offer you a deal. Or doesn't offer a deal that is better than trying your luck in Court. You do have to continue to prepare as if you are going to trial - staying on top of discovery and motions - even if you are negotiating a deal behind the scenes. It's usually done in parallel.

 

[minazoe]

No I really doubt the defence’s intent to cross-examine a witness involved in lab work is indicative of JC testifying.

are you sure? seems weird. mOO

 

[MistyWaters]

are you sure? seems weird. mOO

What would be weird is for an accused to file a motion indicating not only his intention to testify but his wish to be cross-examined.

 

[minazoe]

What would be weird is for an accused to file a motion indicating not only his intention to testify but his wish to be cross-examined.

I'm confused I thought this was about the lab person's cross..I do not think it is weird if JBC wishes to be crossed... mOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I wonder what they found in JC's lab report (in addition to alcohol)?

Here is a snip from one of the Indy law offices regarding lab reports:
Lab Reports | Criminal Defense Attorney | Jeff Cardella | Indianapolis Lawyer | Free Consultation

"The defense argued the admission of the lab reports without the testimony of the actual technician violated the right to confront and cross-examine. This issue eventually went to the court of appeals and the Court concluded that admitting a certified lab report without the testimony of the lab tech violated the right to confront and cross examine. See McMurrar v. State, 905 N.E.2d 527 (Ind.App. 2009)."

 

[Yemelyan]

I wonder what they found in JC's lab report (in addition to alcohol)?

Here is a snip from one of the Indy law offices regarding lab reports:
Lab Reports | Criminal Defense Attorney | Jeff Cardella | Indianapolis Lawyer | Free Consultation

"The defense argued the admission of the lab reports without the testimony of the actual technician violated the right to confront and cross-examine. This issue eventually went to the court of appeals and the Court concluded that admitting a certified lab report without the testimony of the lab tech violated the right to confront and cross examine. See McMurrar v. State, 905 N.E.2d 527 (Ind.App. 2009)."

Thanks for bringing this forward. This is clearly related to the filing being discussed.

The lab report may deal with forensic findings relevant to a sexual assault, bite marks, etc. Like it or not his defense does have a right to question how these tests were performed and the conclusions that were drawn, and have their own witnesses testify if necessary.

No matter how obvious to us his guilt, if this step isn't done, he can claim he wasn't represented appropriately or that his constitutional rights were violated and appeal any conviction. Which I don't think anyone here would want to see happen.

 

[FromGermany1]

I wonder what they found in JC's lab report (in addition to alcohol)?

Here is a snip from one of the Indy law offices regarding lab reports:
Lab Reports | Criminal Defense Attorney | Jeff Cardella | Indianapolis Lawyer | Free Consultation

"The defense argued the admission of the lab reports without the testimony of the actual technician violated the right to confront and cross-examine. This issue eventually went to the court of appeals and the Court concluded that admitting a certified lab report without the testimony of the lab tech violated the right to confront and cross examine. See McMurrar v. State, 905 N.E.2d 527 (Ind.App. 2009)."

Lab report - regarding him (JBC) or the child?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Lab report - regarding him (JBC) or the child?

It's over my head. I'm going with what Yemelyan said.