Indiana Supreme Court visits law school

Offering law students the opportunity to witness a hearing, the Indiana Supreme Court held an oral argument Tuesday in the Moot Court Room of the IU School of Law.\nFive Indiana Supreme Court justices heard the appeal in Richard Brown v. State of Indiana, a 2004 case from the Marion Superior Court.\nAccording to an Indiana courts news release, Brown was convicted on three counts of Class D felony criminal confinement and three counts of Class D felony identity deception. The charges stem from an incident in which Brown told victims they would win a prize if they would leave their clothing at his home.\nOn three different occasions, Brown called a restaurant and told the attendant he was calling from 93.1 Radio Now, according to an appeal filed in the Marion Superior Court. He introduced whoever answered the phone to an opportunity to win cash or a car if that person drove to Brown's residence and took off their clothes. All three individuals complied and Brown would see them take off their clothes in his backyard and send them back with a TV shirt to wrap around themselves. In previous hearings, Brown has insisted that his acts are not unlawful since the definition of terms such as "fraud" and "entice" are very broad, according to the appeal. \n"This is a rare case," said Joel M. Schumm, Brown's attorney. "The question here is not whether the person committed the crime or not. The question is if what the person did is even a crime or not."\nThe opposing argument from the state of Indiana centered around the use of fraudulent measures by Brown to get the individuals to his residence. \n"A reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would know that duping a person to come to your house and undress, at the behest of an automobile, is a crime," said Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher. "The Supreme Court makes sure that the law is upheld and a fair hearing is given. That is why they took this case."\nSchumm voiced his disagreement with Brown's intentions.\n"Mr. Brown's behavior is creepy, but not criminal," Schumm said. "That's what it really is."\nFisher said two theories have been offered to explain Brown's actions -- the defraud theory and the enticing theory.\nHe argued, however, the fraudulent theory gives a clear course toward conclusion.\n"I would like to urge the jury to focus on the fraud, rather than the enticing theory, as a better way to reach the verdict," Fisher said.\nFisher said he is "cautiously optimistic" the verdict will go his way.\nSchumm, on the other hand, clearly hopes for the opposite.\nThe hearing provided an opportunity for IU law students to observe and analyze arguments and proceedings. The audience was also given the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the hearing. \n"I would be surprised if they don't find the verdict going in the favor of the defendant," law student Joel Campeau said. "I don't think the prosecutor's case was strong enough. I really appreciated the interaction and demeanor of the justices; they were very helpful. At one point, Justice (Frank) Sullivan even asked the defendant's attorney to emphasize his strongest point"