Touche, TA. You make a good point on the very large # of cases that simply slip between the cracks.

Given the past 8 or so years in local government, however, I had heard she was going to be acquitted long before the trial. I'm not sure which court this was slated in but I'm guessing it was one of the misdemeanor/D felony courts, in which case there would have been very little if any prepwork done on the part of the officers. It's not difficult to get stories to conflict, any time people are confronted with a stressful situation each human body will react a given way, ranging from audio exclusion to visual distortion, etc. It's a documented fact often used by defense attorneys to fabricate the 'conspiracy defense,' and oftentimes prosecutors don't do a very good job of explaining how adrenaline works on/in the human body.

When I speak of judges acting politically, I'm referring more to injecting personal opinion. For years drug suppression court has widely been considered a wash, because the judges that have presided in there very commonly ruled outside of established case law. While I think it's a much easier extrapolation to claim judicial politicism than to deny it, quite frankly there are very few court cases that involve, for lack of a better word, a 'political insider' as either a defendant or a victim. Hence the proof you're looking for would be extremely difficult to come by. However, it's very easy to see who the judges are who regularly throw out cases involving consent to search, subjective stops/seizures, etc. Some judges to this day simply do not believe that anyone with contraband would EVER consent to search, and so routinely throw these cases out without looking at the circumstances...

TA, why would anybody "official" complain?

I simply assume that they now expect the same sort of judicial outcome if/when the shoe is on the other foot.

Frankly, this should never have gone past the initial investigation by the prosecutor's office. Yeah, the councillor may be a piece of work, but it isn't against the law to be a jerk - not even to the police. Interpretations otherwise are reaching, petty and vindictive.

The officer involved should have "thrown some dirt on it" and moved on.

If anybody was using this as a political football, it was the prosecutor's office. At least they seemed to have moved on.

Ash, you're right about PI. The burden of suspicion (NOT proof) is different. But you have the 911-call and home entry facts incorrect.

Look, I don't like the outcome of this case either. High-profile cases don't require "an explanation above and beyond thinking the police set up some kind of elaborate conspiracy." Courts should judge cases regardless of the litigants' standing or alleged offense.

I do think someone must've botched the evidence in some manner. That does happen, with fatigue, overworking, carelessness, whatever.

But I'd issue the same challenge to you, Ash: quit mouthing the oft-repeated diatribe about political activity from the bench. Research it and provide some factual examples. I did, above, and I don't necessarily agree with you in this matter. If you know of examples, point them out. I'd love to hear them. Otherwise your rant is just platitudes. Because this case has been decided.

And in the three days since it's been decided, I've heard nothing from the FOP, the prosecutor, or anyone on that side of the case, who complained. They certainly don't hesitate to step to the microphones if they remotely suspect one of their members has gotten the short end of the stick.

I don't necessarily want to defend judges in this county. But my extensive experience with courts indicates there's very little political activity from the bench. There is, as mentioned earlier, incompetence, DUIs, poor staff work, etc. Like most major corporations.

I did enjoy your tongue-in-cheek humor tho, Ash. Very nice.

Think Again: I challenge you to state any of your alleged "extensive experience with courts."

I believe your only experience is at The Democrat Machine social events.

Hmmm, so let me get this straight:

1. Police break into DMM's home and make a bogus 9-1-1 call (impersonating her voice.)
2. They then go to her house and either forcefeed her 'two margaritas' so she has to admit to it, or waterboard her until she says what they want her to say.
3. Officers onscene stage an elaborate crime scene, culminating in one officer intentionally injuring herself a la Denzel Washington and his buddies shooting each other in 'Training Day.'
4. Officers also forcefeed a chemical compound to DMM, causing her to urinate all over herself (possible scenario: wagon driver, APC staff, etc. are also in on the conspiracy and the whole thing is made up.)
5. APC employees doctor video footage to hide the fact that they forced her to say hateful, racist comments (which, obviously if she said them meant she wasn't drunk and was thinking in a cogent frame of mind at the time.)

Does that sound about right? As for me, I'm good, I'll stick with the flat-Earth people because this one sounds too far-fetched.

Police don't give breathalyzers unless there's a DUI. Never have. The burden of proof for public intoxication is different than the burden of proof required for driving impairment. The judge knew this, and the judge also knew this was a high-profile political case which should have required an explanation above and beyond thinking the police set up some kind of elaborate conspiracy. If you don't think there has been blatant political activism from the bench, well, wow...
The list goes on ad infinitum. It's a political job.

The courts don't subpoena jail employees, wagon drivers, the neighbor down the street, etc. If they had she probably would have claimed bias and had the case thrown out anyway.


Oh, I forgot to another one: the police have also been collaborating with the community over the course of the past year making numerous false and fictitous 9-1-1 calls from and about DMM. In addition, the complaints that DMM had previously lodged against the police in the past were also fictitous, because they had never been to her place before.

Puzzled, you're clueless. I know the meaning of the words: I taught English for a long time. But, if you have the chance to vote for her, and you do, that's your right. You might want to back away from the word "lying" too. That's not the case.

But don't confuse that with voters' opinions. You were one of 30 or 40 people who were appointed/elected to vote on party matters. In no way does that substitute for voters' ballot box choices. I don't know the PC makeup of that council district. However, in too many of them, half or more of the PCs are appointed, not elected. I've participated in more than I care to remember, going back three decades. Every single one was rigged.

I do keep up with Council matters. She's been relatively invisible, but that's the price you pay if you're in the minority. I watch Ch. 16 often, and the few times I've heard her speak were lukewarm. She seems to vote the way I'd prefer. If you're happy, God bless 'ya. But don't for a minute tell me that she was elected by the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Puzzled, you are technically right. But if you think she was not "appointed" by the powerful party elite, you really are drinking something early. I'm well aware of those "caucuses." She has yet to face voters. I don't know if she will run for a full term on her own. That is her choice, and if she does run, it is her district's choice whether to send her to the council with a full term.

Indy4u2c: was the call traced to the councilwoman? Was there a sobriety test taken and properly recorded? Judges don't ignore uncontroverted facts.

As for the injury, a court just acquited the councilwoman of all charges. So that's a moot point.

Once again, real s-l-o-w-l-y, I asked for specific other examples of political acttvity form the bench, such as the Bradford fiasco I mentioned. Still waiting. Put up or, well, you know...

Please don't misunderstand me. If any one of these charges had stood, I'd not want her representing me. I've had the opportunity over the last 24 hours to ask two very-respected attorneys, one D and one R, what they think of this judge. Both had high praise. And both had won and lost cases in front of her.

So given the facts I now know, I'd have to say, that once again, IMPD botched a case. It happens, unfortunately, but when it does, I don't expect to back them up. All facts point to that conclusion. I'd think the 99% of good IMPD officers would be getting tired of this crap--it happens too often.

If there are other facts, not previously presented, then have at it.

Here's another factoid you might want to consider: special prosecutors don't like to take cases like this, and they don't like to lose.

Indy4u2c: was the call traced to the councilwoman? Yes, all 911 calls are traced!

Was there a sobriety test taken and properly recorded? Yes, Minton-McNeil URINATED ON HERSELF, yelled violent racial profanities, and all of it recorded on video and audio at the Arrestee Processing Center!

As for your wrongful assertion: "Judges don't ignore uncontroverted facts." -They should not have ignored these facts. But this case was bought by The Democrat Machine. The "judge" should be removed from office and the bar!

I will encourage her to run as she has done a great job for my district..unlike most people on here, I live in her district. She represents me and I am happy with her. That is why we ELECTED her. There were no bosses dictating who to vote for..she won and won easily. Please review the meanings of the words 'appoint' and 'elect'. If you had been there, you would know that there were official lists of eligible voters, voters had to show ID and sign in. Voters were then given a paper ballot to mark and put in a sealed ballot box. After the election, the votes were counted with representatives of all candidates present. State law makes it impossible to name stiffs at the last minute. Voters must live in the district and have served as precinct committeepersons. Not even the vice committeepersons are allowed to vote. If you dont like this system for filling vacancies, then go to your state legislature and have it changed. Until then, quit lying about being "appointed" and party bosses making the choice and forcing people to vote that way.

If she's not really guilty, I wonder how the officer got injured??

John Howard, and Indy4U2c, clearly neither of you have read the probable cause affidavits or witness statements in this particular case. You might want to do that. And perhaps talk to someone who was in the courtroom.

'Cause you're making fools of yourselves. This was a mediocre case, from the prosecutor's standpoint.

If the Councilwoman behaved as alleged, she is guilty of being an ass in public. Which does not disqualify anyone from public service. I will admit that if she behaved as alleged, I'd want her off the council if she were my representative.

But absent a criminal act, that decision is for the voters of her district. Who, don't forget, haven't had the chance to opine about her yet--she was appointed, and has yet to face voters.

Indy4u2c, I said a specific case with specific uncontroverted facts. Like the one I posted re: Judge Bradford. Are you just not able to follow simple directions? Still waiting.

Think Again..once again you are WRONG. Doris Minton McNeil was NOT appointed to the council. She was elected. As provided for in Indiana state law, when a vacancy occurs, the party of the previous office holder conducts an ELECTION to fill the vacancy. I was there and I voted...[for Doris] I believe there were 3 possibly candidates. By the way, I will volunteer to be one of the people you offered to liquor up.......but I dont drink cheap liquor so pull out your wallet........this Tuesday night the GOP will conduct an election to fill the vacancy in the office previously held by Teresa Lubbers. That is the law, the procedure and how it is done in Indiana.

And I repeat - any 10 other people in similar circumstance who were not fortunate to have the connections of this defendant would now stand with a felony conviction on their record.

Uncontroverted facts: drunk, urinated on herself, recorded phone call of drunken fool calling 911, attacking officer resulting in injury, violent racist fighting words....I wonder if Think Again been sleeping with Wilson?

"Sleeping with" is a topic Indy4U2C (Jocelyn Tandy) certainly and notoriously knows about professionally but she's wrong here!

Let's take any 10 random people, liquor them up and let them simply poke a finger at a cop while demanding 'Do you know who I am?' and repeatedly referring to the police as 'racist Motherf---s.' See if any of them get acquitted due to insufficient evidence. Won't happen, folks.

Amen

Indy4u2C, you've just displayed your ignorance. Please illuminate us on any cases of political activity from the bench. Specifically. I'll wait right here. (Forever) I'll help you out: what follows is the kind of specific case I m talking about.

Abdul, I spoke too soon. I later remembered a big case of strong political activity from the bench. It involved one of your guests Friday, Judge Cale Bradford.
'
When he was a Superior Court judge, completely full of himself 24/7, he presided in the City Council ballot case. Being a pompous ass isn't a crime, not even inappropriate judicial conduct. But he went one step further. Even though his brother was on the council, and a candidate for re-election at the time, he took the case.

He ruled in favor of the Council Republicans. It took only a short time for the Indiana Court of Appeals to goof-slap him into reality. He should've recused but failed to do so.

His reward? A seat on the Court of Appeals.

Remember that the next time you book him on your show. And ask him exactly how it came to be, that he didn't see the need to recuse when his brother was a defendant.

...and have you ever reviewed the decisions of the wife of Democrat party chair Ed Treacy?

Think Again, how about an active Democrat issuing a finding of NOT GUILTY that is contrary to the evidence presented against an elected Democrat for a violent crime?

Another CC democrat police hater/abuser gets a pass. First Gibson now Minton.
I think the fix was in and not only do we have a drunk abuser on the CC we have a crook in the courts.
How can we expect our kids to respect police authority when our law makers won't knowing that their political cronies judges will protect them.

The police behavior in this case has sounded fishy from day one. During the bench trial [and I was there] the police officer changed her story twice and claimed to have suffered injuries from being shoved by DMM...She never sought medical treatment. She showed no doctor's bills or even a bill for an aspirin. IF she had a case against DMM, it was never presented and IMHO the judge had no choice to find that the defendant was not guilty. Where was the prosecutor's case? Perhaps he never had one.

you don't have to go to the emergency room if you have injury. in indiana for there to be an injury all you need is a complaint of pain. all you need for battery is to touch some one in a rude or insulate manner.
and think again. how did the police not act according to policy?

Sure, and who makes that determination of whats rude or insulting?

Corruption is as corruption does. --The Democrat Machine!

The Machine is ALIVE in Indianapolis a/k/a South Chicago, Indiana!

Wow. Already we're calling the judge a liar, and this ruling is less than 18 hours old.

Did any of you, including Abdul, ever stop to consider, that perhaps the evidence was flimsy? I don't know the councilwoman, nor the judge. But in this county, it isn't politics you've got to fear on the bench--it's incompetence. As a longtime user and observer of the courts, I know it's become a dumping ground for bad attorneys. I have no idea is Judge Garcia is in that mix, but when I read the newspaper accounts back when the case was filed, and now, it's clear that IMPD didn't behave according to policy.

Ordinarily, I'm first to stick up for police officers. Their mission is complex and dangerous. My few interactions with them have been professional. But there are bad apples.

That does not mean, however, that they have Carte Blanche to behave badly.

Honetly, Abdul, ask around: Marion County judges usually get damned independent when they get on the bench. They're only political when they are on the ballot. In fact, during my political days as a loyal party worker, when we'd ask the judges to do something political, like attend fund-raisers or help with certain tasks, you'd have thought we'd asked them to kiss their sister. Most arrogantly refused to help the party, citing judicial temperment and objectivity.

I have never, in 35 years, seen abject political activity from the bench. I've seen plenty of incompetence, on both sides of the aisle. But these kinds of cases are too "out there." You can't hide or conduct business in a closed environment. Too many folks are watching.

The only whorish aspect of their tenure, is when they raise money for re-election. Their biggest source of funds? Lawyers who practice before them. They even hold joint fund-raisers, where all the Dem or GOP judges go together and host a cocktail party. It ought to be banned.

All I know about this judge is that she's respected by the lawyers I respect--from both parties.

If you haven't seen abject political activity from the bench in Marion County in 35 years, you are either acting in total ignorance or disregard for the obvious (in this case).

ABDUL, why no commentary on this so-called 'judge' and the rule of law? Based on the sketchy info provided, this sounds like a bench trial.
-
While I am no lover of government, it's difficult to believe that DMM did not engage in any of the reported behavior.
-
I'm am not in a state of 'shock and awe' with LiaR Christ-Garcia. Unethical LiaR are more common than people think.
-
GOVERNMENT at its finest.

I am extemely happy over this not guilty verdict. Those of us who know Doris Minton McNeil know that this was very out of character for her if it even happened. Some of the IMPD officers in this area have been very abusive to residents in the past and maybe this will send a message.

Welcome to business as usual when it comes to Indianapolis politicians. Dems or Reps, they are dirty. The folks that need to be concerned with are the IMPD officers that were involved in the arrest. My guess is that they are going to be blackballed and harassed by IMPD for many years to come. I hope those officers weren't planning for a promotion or job advancement. Watch your back and CYA on everything you do. Big brother within IMPD will be watching you closely.

Mike Hobbs? He pleaded guilty to a felony and should resign post-haste. No plea bargain. Bye bye.