Call or Text:
(317) 576-3824
The system is built on checks. Each role tests the one before it: prosecutors screen out cases the police cannot prove, the defense challenges the prosecutor's charges in court, and the judge makes sure both sides follow the rules.
Officers gather evidence, conduct stops and searches, make arrests, and document their findings. The quality and legality of that work forms the foundation of every criminal case.
Prosecutors review the investigation and decide what charges, if any, to file. They present the State's case in court and bear the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defense counsel's role is to hold the State to its burden, enforce constitutional and statutory protections, and ensure no one loses their freedom to a flawed investigation.
Judges preside as neutral referees. They apply the law and the rules of evidence impartially, decide what a jury is allowed to hear, and make sure both sides receive a fair trial.
Most officers are doing a difficult job in good faith. But in every profession, mistakes happen. In criminal cases, those mistakes can cost someone their freedom. My role is to identify errors, protect my clients' rights, and make sure the government has sufficient evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
Over three decades as an Indiana prosecutor, I spent my career on the other side of these cases, reviewing police reports, evaluating investigations, and deciding which cases were strong enough to take to trial. I know what a thorough, well-documented investigation looks like. And I know where corners get cut, where documentation falls short, and where constitutional lines get crossed.
That experience now works in your favor.
"Jurors are instructed to evaluate officer testimony the same way they evaluate any witness: neither more nor less credible. That means it is not only appropriate, but expected, to look carefully at an officer's decisions, observations, and documentation. That is what I do."
These are examples of the kinds of procedural defects, omissions and errors that may arise in the ordinary course of police work. It is important to hire an attorney who has experience identifying whether these problems exist in your case.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Officers must have reasonable suspicion to stop a person and probable cause to conduct a search. When a stop lacks legal justification, or a search is conducted without a valid warrant or recognized exception, the evidence obtained may be suppressed. This is one of the most common and consequential investigative defects in drug, OWI, and weapons cases.
Before a custodial interrogation, officers are required to advise suspects of their constitutional rights. Failures to give Miranda warnings, questioning after a suspect invokes their right to counsel, or use of coercive interrogation tactics can render statements inadmissible. Statements obtained in violation of these protections can be challenged and excluded, removing what is often the State's most powerful evidence.
OWI prosecutions depend heavily on chemical testing and standardized field sobriety tests. Blood results are only as reliable as the process behind them: the draw, the handling and storage, the chain of custody, and the calibration of the lab instruments all have to be done correctly. Field sobriety tests must be administered according to standardized procedures, and deviations affect reliability. Medical conditions, environmental factors, and training gaps can all produce inaccurate results.
Physical evidence, drugs, weapons, biological samples, must be processed according to established procedures. Breaks in the chain of custody create opportunities for contamination, degradation, or misidentification. Lab testing errors occur more often than most people realize. These defects go to the reliability and admissibility of the evidence against you.
Research consistently shows that eyewitness identifications are among the least reliable forms of evidence, and that suggestive identification procedures make them worse. Lineups that are not administered properly can produce inaccurate identifications. Indiana has specific rules for how identifications are conducted. If those rules are not followed, the eyewitness identification evidence may be excluded from the case.
Police reports are the written record of what an officer observed, did, and concluded. Inconsistencies between a report and an officer's testimony, facts that were documented differently at different stages, details left out of a report that later appear at trial, these are all areas that a thorough defense review will examine. Omissions are sometimes as significant as what is included.
Once officers develop a theory of the case, investigations can narrow around confirming that theory rather than objectively evaluating all possibilities. Exculpatory leads may go unfollowed. Alternative suspects may not be investigated. Evidence that does not fit the narrative may not be collected or preserved. This investigative bias, sometimes called tunnel vision or confirmation bias, is a recognized problem in criminal justice and a legitimate area of defense scrutiny.
Prosecutors are required to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, a constitutional obligation under Brady v. Maryland. Officers who fail to document or report exculpatory information, who lose or destroy evidence, or whose agencies fail to produce required materials create serious constitutional issues. These violations, when identified, can result in dismissal of charges or reversal of a conviction.
Select a county to see a real, court-documented example of a police or investigative error, drawn from Indiana court decisions. These illustrate the kinds of errors that occur statewide.
Select a case by type of charge to see a documented example of police investigative error drawn from Indiana court decisions, along with a plain-English summary and professional analysis of what went wrong and why it matters.
Identifying investigative errors is not about attacking officers personally or undermining public safety. It is about doing what the Constitution requires, holding the government to its burden, challenging evidence that was obtained or documented improperly, and ensuring that the outcome of a case is based on reliable, lawfully obtained evidence.
A thorough review of the police work in a case begins at the first consultation. I examine reports, body camera footage, lab records, search warrant applications, and any other documentation generated during the investigation. What I find shapes the defense strategy.
If errors exist in a case, I find them, and I use them.