Elmer Baker-Supreme Court Decision-Taking it under advisement

**Mrs.Slotz** · 11-10-2010, 12:48 PM

Does anyone know what this decision means?

http://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/def...detail&id=1118

**nathandiehl** · 11-10-2010, 01:34 PM

Looks to me like oral arguments were today.
This is like a trial, where each side gets to present its case.

As far as I can tell, there has been no decision.

**Mrs.Slotz** · 11-10-2010, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by nathandiehl

Looks to me like oral arguments were today.
This is like a trial, where each side gets to present its case.

As far as I can tell, there has been no decision.

I am at work, so was not able to listen to the link yet However, someone that is close to this case called and told me what the decision was. Nathan, what side was heard today?

**Werdle** · 11-10-2010, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by nathandiehl

Looks to me like oral arguments were today.
This is like a trial, where each side gets to present its case.

As far as I can tell, there has been no decision.

Partially correct. The Indiana Supreme Court granted a transfer request from the Indiana Court of Appeals. This means the Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the Court of Appeals decision. This vacates (eliminates) the earlier decision. Oral arguments were heard today. This is not like a trial. The only issue for the Court today was to decide if the law was properly applied by the lower courts. There is no evidence heard-- only legal arguments made by both sides, mostly in response to questions the court panel makes. The issues to be decided are technical and listed on the link provided my Mrs. Slotz.

**Werdle** · 11-10-2010, 02:24 PM

Any decision will be months away.

**Mrs.Slotz** · 11-10-2010, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Werdle

Any decision will be months away.

I thought I read somewhere that they only have 90 days to make their decision in the State of Indiana. My husband (Mr. Slotz, yes folks, he is still here with us but moved on to FB) said that this decision normally means Guilty.

**Mrs.Slotz** · 11-11-2010, 09:47 AM

When I got home from work, I did view the Video. I was really impressed with the arguments. Mr. Baker is spending 106 years in prison for being a child molester.
If you get time view this because I would like to know if this Mr. Baker can actually get out of prison because of what his attorney presents to the Supreme Court.

**Werdle** · 11-11-2010, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Mrs.Slotz

When I got home from work, I did view the Video. I was really impressed with the arguments. Mr. Baker is spending 106 years in prison for being a child molester.
If you get time view this because I would like to know if this Mr. Baker can actually get out of prison because of what his attorney presents to the Supreme Court.

Yes -- but only a few convictions are overturned on appeal.

**Mrs.Slotz** · 11-11-2010, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Werdle

Yes -- but only a few convictions are overturned on appeal.

Couple of Questions.
If the Supreme Court says No, can his attorney come back again with another argument?
If the Supreme Court says Yes, can the victims come back and sue him for damages?

**Werdle** · 11-11-2010, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Mrs.Slotz

Couple of Questions.
If the Supreme Court says No, can his attorney come back again with another argument?
If the Supreme Court says Yes, can the victims come back and sue him for damages?

#1. Unless there is newly discovered evidence -- NO. He has one day in court. It is possible, however, to raise a federal issue regarding the conviction in the federal court system by filing a federal appeal.

#2. The victim can always sue for damages provided the statute of limitations has not expired --- two years for this act. Any judgment is likely uncollectible.