When you choose Josiah as your Indiana criminal defense lawyer, you are choosing an advocate who will stand by you every step of the way. His dedication to litigating cases when it is in his client’s best interest, rather than merely settling for plea agreements, demonstrates his commitment to achieving the best possible outcome for his clients. Trust Josiah Swinney to provide the vigorous defense you deserve.

Josiah’s courtroom experience is extensive and varied, reflecting his deep understanding of the legal system and his ability to navigate its complexities. He has successfully defended clients in many jury trials, where his meticulous preparation and compelling arguments have often led to favorable verdicts. Josiah’s approach to each case is thorough and strategic, ensuring that every detail is examined and every possible defense is explored.

In suppression hearings, Josiah’s expertise shines as he challenges the admissibility of evidence, often securing critical victories for his clients. His ability to dissect police procedures and identify constitutional violations has resulted in the exclusion of key evidence, significantly impacting the outcomes of many cases.

And for cases that do proceed to sentencing, Josiah Swinney’s expertise shines.  Josiah delivers masterful advocacy and leverages his deep understanding of Indiana’s criminal justice system. Josiah crafts compelling sentencing arguments that highlight mitigating factors, challenge aggravating circumstances, and helps to persuade Judge’s to exercise leniency. His strategic approach, honed through years of high-stakes litigation, ensures that every client receives vigorous representation at this critical stage. Josiah’s proven ability to navigate complex sentencing hearings reinforces his reputation as a premier litigator dedicated to protecting his clients’ futures.

Josiah’s courtroom demeanor is characterized by confidence and poise. He is known for his persuasive arguments and his ability to connect with juries, Judges, and opposing counsel. His cross-examinations are particularly noteworthy, as he skillfully exposes inconsistencies and weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.  He enjoy’s the excitement of litigation, and the thrill of having outmaneuvered opposing counsel. 

Click any of the following links for more information:

Corydon, Harrison County, Indiana Criminal Courts

Josiah Swinney, Criminal Attorney in Corydon, Harrison County, Indiana

Indiana Criminal Suppression Lawyer and the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution

Criminal Suppression Law and Article 1 Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution

The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and the Right to Remain Silent

Jury Trial Criminal Attorney in Indiana

Court Trial Criminal Lawyer in Indiana

Criminal Attorney for Drug & Firearm Cases 

Murder & Homicide Criminal Defense Lawyer

Sex Crime Defense Lawyer in Indiana

Domestic Violence Defense Attorney in Indiana

Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer in Indiana

White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer in Indiana

Forfeiture Litigation Attorney in Indiana

Call Indiana Criminal Attorney Josiah Swinney for a free consultation

Corydon, Harrison County, Indiana Criminal Courts

The criminal court system in Corydon, Harrison County, Indiana, is a vital component of the local justice framework, addressing a range of criminal cases in a small, historic community in southern Indiana. Corydon, the county seat of Harrison County and Indiana’s first state capital, operates within Indiana’s 3rd Judicial Circuit, relying primarily on the Harrison County Circuit Court and Harrison County Superior Court to handle criminal matters from minor infractions to serious felonies. This system collaborates with law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, and correctional services to uphold state laws, ensure public safety, and deliver justice in a manner that reflects the needs of a rural, close-knit community with a rich historical heritage. The courts in Corydon are designed to balance fairness, efficiency, and rehabilitation, navigating the challenges of a modestly populated jurisdiction with limited resources while serving residents who value local accountability and community ties.

The primary courts handling criminal cases in Harrison County are the Harrison County Circuit Court and the Harrison County Superior Court, both located at the Harrison County Justice Center at 1445 Gardner Lane in Corydon. The Circuit Court, part of Indiana’s 3rd Judicial Circuit, serves as a primary trial court with broad jurisdiction over felony and misdemeanor cases, as well as civil, probate, and family matters. It typically handles serious criminal cases, such as murder, robbery, or drug trafficking, alongside less severe offenses. The Superior Court shares jurisdiction with the Circuit Court for criminal cases, often focusing on misdemeanors, traffic violations, and certain felony cases, as well as juvenile matters and small claims. Each court is presided over by an elected judge who ensures proceedings adhere to Indiana’s legal standards, maintaining an accessible system for Corydon residents. The Justice Center, a modern facility opened in 2007, replaced the historic courthouse in downtown Corydon and serves as a central hub for court-related activities, facilitating coordinated operations in a community-oriented setting that reflects the county’s rural character.

The criminal justice process in Corydon begins with the detection or reporting of a crime, typically managed by the Harrison County Sheriff’s Office or the Corydon Police Department. When a suspect is arrested, they are booked and may be detained at the Harrison County Jail, also located at the Justice Center at 1445 Gardner Lane. The Sheriff’s Office plays a critical role in this initial stage, apprehending suspects and ensuring their appearance in court. Once a suspect is in custody, the case is referred to the Harrison County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, housed at the Justice Center. The prosecutor evaluates the evidence to determine whether to file charges, which can range from Class C misdemeanors, like public intoxication, to Level 1 felonies, such as murder. The prosecutor’s decision is guided by the evidence’s strength, the offense’s severity, and the community’s interests, reflecting Corydon’s focus on maintaining public safety in a rural environment with challenges like drug-related crime and economic hardship.

After charges are filed, the defendant appears for an initial hearing in either the Circuit Court or the Superior Court, depending on the case’s nature and court assignment. During this hearing, the defendant is informed of the charges, their constitutional rights, and their right to legal counsel. For those unable to afford an attorney, Harrison County provides public defender services to ensure compliance with the Sixth Amendment, though the availability of public defenders may be limited due to the county’s small size and budget constraints. The initial hearing also addresses bail or bond, determining whether the defendant will be released pending trial or remain in custody. In a rural community like Corydon, judges often consider the defendant’s local ties, criminal history, and the offense’s severity when setting bail, aiming to balance public safety with fairness in a community where personal relationships are common. The jail’s integration within the Justice Center streamlines processing, making it easier for Corydon residents to navigate the early stages of the criminal justice process, though the small scale of operations can sometimes lead to delays.

The pretrial phase is a crucial component of Harrison County’s criminal court system, particularly given the county’s limited resources and modest caseload compared to urban areas. During this period, the prosecution and defense engage in discovery, exchanging evidence and preparing their cases. Harrison County may utilize pretrial services to assess defendants’ risks and needs, promoting alternatives to detention, such as supervised release, for low-risk offenders, which helps manage jail capacity in a small facility. Plea negotiations are common, as they help manage the court’s docket and conserve resources. For example, a defendant from Corydon charged with a misdemeanor like petty theft might plead guilty in exchange for a fine or community service, while a felony charge, such as drug possession, could result in a plea agreement involving probation or community corrections. If no plea deal is reached, the case proceeds to trial, where the outcome is determined by a judge (in a bench trial) or a jury.

Trials in Corydon’s courts follow Indiana’s standardized procedures. For serious felonies, such as violent crimes or major drug offenses, jury trials are common in the Circuit Court, involving a panel of Harrison County residents who evaluate evidence and deliver a verdict. Jury selection in a small, rural community like Corydon can be challenging, as residents may have personal connections to the defendant, victim, or court officials, potentially affecting impartiality. Judges are responsible for ensuring fair jury selection and trial proceedings, adhering to Indiana’s rules of evidence and criminal procedure. Bench trials, where the judge decides the case, are often used for misdemeanors or less complex felonies, particularly in the Superior Court, streamlining the process in a resource-constrained system. Both courts are equipped to handle trials, supported by the modern facilities of the Justice Center, though the limited population and small court staff can sometimes lead to scheduling delays, especially for complex cases requiring external resources.

Sentencing follows a conviction and is guided by Indiana’s sentencing statutes, which provide judges with discretion within defined limits. In Harrison County, misdemeanor convictions may result in fines, community service, or short-term incarceration in the county jail. Felony convictions, especially for higher-level offenses, can lead to longer sentences, often served in state correctional facilities. However, Harrison County emphasizes rehabilitative approaches for non-violent offenders. The county’s community corrections program, managed through probation services, offers alternatives to traditional incarceration, such as electronic monitoring, work release, or supervised community service, addressing issues like substance abuse or unemployment that contribute to criminal behavior. The Probation Department, operating out of the Justice Center, supervises offenders placed on probation, ensuring compliance with court-ordered conditions, such as attending counseling or passing drug tests. These programs are tailored to support rehabilitation while maintaining public safety in a community that values second chances.

Specialty courts, such as drug courts or problem-solving courts, are limited in Harrison County due to its small size and resource constraints. However, the Circuit and Superior Courts may implement informal diversion programs or collaborate with regional initiatives to address issues like substance abuse, particularly given the opioid challenges facing rural Indiana. For example, a defendant from Corydon with a history of addiction might be referred to treatment programs as part of a plea agreement, with the goal of reducing recidivism. These efforts reflect Harrison County’s commitment to addressing root causes of crime, though the lack of formal specialty courts underscores the challenges of operating in a rural jurisdiction with limited funding and staff. The county’s focus on community-based solutions often relies on local partnerships to support rehabilitation.

The administrative foundation of the criminal court system in Corydon is the Harrison County Clerk’s Office, located at the Justice Center at 1445 Gardner Lane and reachable at (812) 738-4289. The Clerk’s Office manages court records, filings, and scheduling for the Circuit and Superior Courts, and supports e-filing, which streamlines the submission of legal documents, a requirement for attorneys in Harrison County. It also ensures public access to court records through platforms like mycase.in.gov, though certain documents, like those involving juveniles, may be restricted. In a small county like Harrison, the Clerk’s Office is essential to maintaining an organized and efficient court system, coordinating with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to ensure timely case processing, which is critical for Corydon residents navigating the justice system.

The Harrison County Justice Center at 1445 Gardner Lane serves as the central hub for the Circuit Court, Superior Court, Clerk’s Office, Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Probation Department, and county jail. The Justice Center, a modern facility, is a symbol of the county’s commitment to justice, hosting a range of legal activities, from arraignments to trials. Its location on the outskirts of Corydon is accessible to residents, and its operating hours (typically 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday) accommodate the needs of the community. The integration of the jail and court-related offices within the Justice Center facilitates efficient coordination among agencies, enhancing the system’s operational flow in a compact setting.

Operating in a rural county like Harrison presents unique challenges for the criminal court system. The small population and limited tax base result in fewer resources for court staff, public defenders, and correctional programs compared to urban areas. This can lead to case backlogs, particularly for complex felony cases requiring extensive evidence or expert testimony. The close-knit nature of Corydon can complicate impartiality, as jurors or court officials may know those involved in a case, potentially influencing proceedings. However, this dynamic fosters accountability, as judges, prosecutors, and other officials are often deeply invested in the well-being of Harrison County residents. The county’s rural setting and historical significance also mean that certain offenses, such as property crimes or drug-related activities, may be prevalent, requiring targeted judicial responses.

Technological advancements, such as e-filing and online case searches, have improved efficiency in Corydon’s courts, though rural counties like Harrison often face challenges in fully implementing these tools due to budget constraints. Despite these limitations, the courts strive to maintain fairness and accessibility. The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office supports victims by providing information about case progress and resources, such as counseling or restitution programs, often coordinated through victim advocates. In cases involving violent crimes, victim impact statements are often considered during sentencing, ensuring victims have a voice in the process. The office’s role emphasizes justice and support for those impacted by crime in a community-oriented setting.

The criminal court system in Corydon is a collaborative effort involving the Sheriff’s Office, Corydon Police Department, Prosecuting Attorney, community corrections, and Probation Department, all working with the courts to ensure cases are handled from arrest to resolution. While the system faces challenges inherent to a rural setting, such as limited resources and community familiarity, it remains committed to delivering equitable outcomes. The courts in Corydon strive to balance punishment with rehabilitation, reflecting Indiana’s judicial goals while addressing the specific needs of Harrison County’s residents.

In conclusion, the criminal court system in Corydon, Harrison County, Indiana, is a multifaceted institution that plays a critical role in maintaining justice in a rural, historic community. Through the Circuit and Superior Courts, the system processes a wide range of criminal cases, supported by law enforcement, prosecutors, and correctional programs. Despite challenges like limited resources and potential bias in a close-knit community, the system upholds fairness, protects public safety, and promotes rehabilitation. The Harrison County Justice Center stands as a pillar of this commitment, serving as the heart of a justice system that seeks to meet the needs of its residents with diligence and integrity.

Indiana Criminal Suppression Lawyer and the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution

The Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment focuses on the reasonable expectation of privacy and a balancing test.

• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: This concept was established in the landmark case Katz v. United States (1967), which held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. This means that if an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the government must respect it.
• Balancing Test: Courts often use a balancing test to determine reasonableness, weighing the government’s interest in conducting the search against the individual’s right to privacy.

Warrants and Probable Cause

• Warrant Requirement: A warrant must be issued by a neutral magistrate and must be based on probable cause. The warrant must specify the place to be searched and the items to be seized to prevent general searches.
• Probable Cause: This is more than mere suspicion but less than the evidence required for conviction. It requires a reasonable belief, based on factual evidence, that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed.

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

• Consent Searches: If an individual voluntarily consents to a search, no warrant is needed. The consent must be given freely and not coerced.
• Plain View Doctrine: If law enforcement officers are lawfully present and see evidence of a crime in plain view, they can seize it without a warrant.
• Search Incident to Arrest: After a lawful arrest, officers can search the arrestee and the immediate area to ensure officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.
• Exigent Circumstances: In emergencies, such as imminent danger, hot pursuit of a suspect, or the risk of evidence being destroyed, officers can conduct searches without a warrant.
• Automobile Exception: Due to the mobile nature of vehicles, if officers have probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of a crime, they can search it without a warrant.

Exclusionary Rule

• Purpose: The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct by excluding illegally obtained evidence from being used in court.
• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: This doctrine extends the exclusionary rule to evidence indirectly obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure. If the initial search is unlawful, any evidence derived from it is also inadmissible.

Important Cases

• Mapp v. Ohio (1961): This case applied the exclusionary rule to the states, ensuring that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state courts.
• Terry v. Ohio (1968): Established the “stop and frisk” rule, allowing officers to stop and pat down individuals based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
• United States v. Jones (2012): Held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and tracking its movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

If you have questions, call Criminal Attorney Josiah Swinney to discuss your case today.

Criminal Suppression Law and Article 1 Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution

Article 1 Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution provides protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, similar to the Fourth Amendment. However, Indiana courts interpret this provision independently from the federal Fourth Amendment. The key points include:

• Reasonableness Standard: Indiana courts use a reasonableness standard that considers the totality of the circumstances. This means the Court looks at the specific facts of each case to determine if a search or seizure was reasonable. The Indiana reasonableness standard of a search or seizure is assessed based on the totality of the circumstances, with a strong focus on privacy expectations. while Federal reasonableness is often assessed through established legal standards and precedents, such as the need for a warrant or recognized exceptions.
• Privacy Expectations: Indiana places a strong emphasis on the individual’s expectation of privacy. The courts often weigh the degree of intrusion against the need for the search or seizure.

The Indiana Supreme Court has developed its own body of case law interpreting Article 1, Section 11. This can lead to different outcomes than a Federal case, even when the facts are identical. For a more detailed look at supression law and the constitution, click here.

The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and the Right to Remain Silent

The right to remain silent is a fundamental protection under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This right is primarily designed to protect individuals from self-incrimination during legal proceedings.

The Fifth Amendment states, “No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This clause forms the basis of the right to remain silent, ensuring that individuals cannot be forced to provide testimonial evidence that could incriminate them.

The landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 significantly expanded the practical application of the right to remain silent. The Court held that individuals must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent, before any custodial interrogation. This led to the creation of the “Miranda warning”, which you are already aware of if you own a tv.

The right to remain silent applies primarily during custodial interrogations. This means that if an individual is in police custody and subject to questioning, they must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. If a person voluntarily speaks to law enforcement without being prompted, those statements can normally be used against them in court. The protection against self-incrimination does not apply if the individual chooses to speak freely. To invoke the right to remain silent, an individual must clearly state their intention to do so. Simply remaining silent is not enough; the person must explicitly assert their Fifth Amendment rights. Additionally, wishy washy statements like “maybe I shouldn’t talk” are not sufficient to demonstrate assertion of the right. Police officers are required to provide the Miranda warning to ensure that suspects are aware of their rights. Failure to do so can result in the exclusion of any statements made by the suspect from being used as evidence in court. Josiah often advises clients to invoke their right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination. This strategy helps protect their legal interests and ensures that they do not inadvertently provide evidence that could be used against them.

Josiah also has a mastery of additional rights that are afforded in Indiana, known as Pirtle Rights, that give individuals additional protections that extend beyond the Federal Constitution.

The right to remain silent is a cornerstone of the American legal system, providing essential protection against self-incrimination. Understanding and properly invoking this right is crucial for anyone involved in legal proceedings. The evolution of case law, particularly through landmark Supreme Court decisions, has shaped the application and interpretation of this right, ensuring that it remains a vital safeguard for individual liberties. If you have questions about your rights under the 5th Amendment, contact Josiah today.

Jury Trial Criminal Attorney in Indiana

Josiah J. Swinney is a distinguished jury trial lawyer known for his exceptional skills and unwavering dedication to his client’s interests.  With a robust legal career focused on criminal defense, Josiah has earned a reputation as a formidable trial lawyers. Josiah’s extensive experience spans numerous high-stakes jury trials, where his strategy and persuasive advocacy have consistently led to favorable outcomes for his clients. His deep understanding of criminal law, combined with his ability to navigate complex legal issues, makes him a formidable opponent in the courtroom. Josiah’s track record speaks for itself. He has successfully defended clients in a wide range of criminal cases, from minor offenses to serious felonies.

Many attorneys are afraid of jury trials.  Josiah, on the other hand, prefers cases that are likely to result in litigation and trial because this is where Josiah shines and is able to separate himself from many other attorneys. Josiah has also worked directly with Jeff Cardella, the Criminal Defense Attorney & Expungement Lawyer in Indianapolis & Indiana. If you are considering hiring a trial attorney, rather than a plea bargain attorney, call Josiah for a free consultation today.

Court Trial Criminal Lawyer in Indiana

Not all cases are appropriate for Jury trial.  In certain cases, where the facts are in dispute, a Jury trial can be a client’s best course of action.  However, when the interpretation of law is in dispute, a client can sometimes be better off with a Court Trial.  This is a difficult decision to make and depends on the facts of the case and the particular Judge. If you have questions about whether your case would be best heard by a Jury or the Court, contact Josiah for a free consultation.

Criminal Attorney for Drug & Firearm Cases

Defending against a drug or firearm charge often involves two core questions:

(1) Can the State prove possession – either actual possession or constructive possession?

(2) Is there a Suppression issue that might result in the exclusion of evidence under the Federal or Indiana Constitution?

Josiah has extensive experience handling a wide range of drug and firearm cases, from simple possession to trafficking and illegal firearm possession charges.

1. Constructive Possession vs. Actual Possession

• • Actual Possession: This occurs when the defendant has direct physical control over the drugs or firearms. For example, if the police find a firearm in your hand, you are in actual possession. In these cases, the question of possession itself is generally straightforward and simple.
  • Constructive Possession: This occurs when the defendant, although not in direct physical control, has the power and intention to control the drugs or firearms. For instance, if drugs are found in a car or home, and you have access to and control over the location,  you may be charged with constructive possession. These cases are often far more complex.  In cases involving constructive possesion, the Court looks at 6 factors:

(a) incriminating statements by the defendant;

(b) attempted flight or furtive gestures;

(c) a drug manufacturing setting;

(d) proximity of the defendant to the contraband;

(e) contraband is in plain view; and

(f) location of the contraband is in close proximity to items owned by the defendant.

2. Is there a Suppression issue that might result in the exclusion of evidence under the Federal or Indiana Constitution?

(a) The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution focuses on whether or not a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, and whether or not an individual defendant has standing. There generally must be a court issued warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.

(b) Article 1 Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution provides safeguards from State Actors that go beyond the protection of the 4th Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Indiana courts use a reasonableness standard that considers the totality of the circumstances. Indiana places a strong emphasis on the individual’s expectation of privacy.  The Indiana Supreme Court has developed its own body of case law interpreting Article 1, Section 11, which can lead to a different outcome than a case handled in Federal Court.

(c) The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and the Right to Remain Silent is a fundamental protection created under the original Bill of Rights. This right is primarily designed to protect individuals from self-incrimination during legal proceedings.  When an individual’s 5th Amendment Rights are violated, a statement or confession that the individual made can often be excluded from evidence.  

Click the following link for additional information about Federal Drug Charges in Indiana.

Murder & Homicide Defense Attorney in Indiana

Facing an accusation of murder or homicide can involve significant penalties, including life sentences or even the death penalty.

When facing the most serious of charges, you need a defense attorney with unparalleled expertise and a relentless commitment to pursuing your interests. Josiah Swinney engages in meticulous preparation and aggressive courtroom advocacy to protect the rights and freedoms of his clients.

If you are facing a murder or homicide case – this is not the time to go dumpster diving for discount legal representation. If you are prepared to pull out all the stops and go all in on your legal defense – call Josiah to discuss your case.

With years of experience handling complex cases, Josiah has developed a deep understanding of the legal intricacies involved. His extensive knowledge of forensic evidence, witness examination, and legal precedents allows them to craft compelling defenses tailored to each unique case. Whether it’s a high-profile murder trial or a sensitive manslaughter case, Josiah brings a wealth of expertise to the defense table. Josiah has the ability to develop robust legal defense strategies and is adept at exploring all possible defenses, including self-defense, which can be crucial in homicide cases. Self-defense is a legal justification that allows individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm or death. Josiah understands the nuances of self-defense laws, including the “Stand Your Ground” statute. Click on the following link for additional information about Indiana Murder and Homicide Lawyer Josiah Swinney.

Sex Crimes Defense Lawyer in Indiana

If you are facing accusations of a sex crime, hiring Josiah Swinney as your criminal defense lawyer has the possibility of making a significant difference in your case.

Josiah Swinney is a seasoned criminal defense attorney with experience in defending clients accused of sex crimes. His deep understanding of the complexities involved in these cases, including the sensitive nature and the severe consequences, ensures that you receive a robust and compassionate defense. Known for his exceptional litigation skills, Josiah Swinney is not one to shy away from the courtroom. He is dedicated to fighting for his clients’ rights and freedoms, often challenging the prosecution’s evidence and strategies. His ability to effectively argue motions and present compelling cases in court can be crucial in achieving a favorable outcome.

One of the most daunting aspects of a sex crime conviction is the possibility of being placed on the sex offender registry. This can have long-lasting impacts on your personal and professional life. Josiah Swinney is well-versed in the laws and regulations surrounding the sex offender registry. He works tirelessly to minimize the impact on his clients, exploring all possible avenues to avoid or reduce registration requirements. Unfortunately, being placed on a sex offender registry is often the end of living a normal life. Most individuals on the sex offedner registry become homeless, because they can not obtain employement and their lives are so regulated that basic activities like using a cell phone or a computer without permission are banned, and can subject the indivudal to additional prosecution.  Being placed on the sex offender registry is the end of being able to function in normal society. You should think twice about agreeing to be placed on the sex offedner registry merely to get a probation agreement. If you have questions about a sex offense, call Josiah today.

Domestic Violence Defense Attorney in Indiana

Defending against false allegations of domestic violence can be incredibly challenging and emotionally taxing. False allegations of domestic violence can arise for various reasons, including:

• Custody Battles: One party may falsely accuse the other to gain an advantage in child custody or divorce proceedings.
• Revenge or Retaliation: Sometimes, accusations are made out of spite or to retaliate for perceived wrongs.
• Mental Health Issues: In some cases, the accuser may have underlying mental health issues that lead to false claims.

In my experience, Domestic violence cases involve more innocent clients than any other area of law, because almost no evidence is required for the filing of charges. Let me give you some examples:

If someone called the police and said you had drugs, and the police were unable to find any drugs on you, it is very unlikely you would be prosecuted for a crime. If someone accused you of having driven a car drunk a week before, but the police had no evidence that you had even consumed alcohol, it is very unlikely you would be prosecuted for a crime. However, if a romantic partner merely say the words “he hit me” – without any corroboration or evidence – the police are likely to take you to jail and the prosecutor is likely to file charges against you.

Do not let you life be destroyed by false allegations from a vindictive lover. If you need an aggressive defense attorney who can defend you against allegations of domestic violence – with the goal of a not guilty or dismissal – call Josiah. Click on any of the following links for additional information about domestic violence defense, self defense law in Indiana, or Indiana legal defenses in general.

Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer in Indiana

Federal criminal defense is inherently more complicated (and expensive) than state defense for several reasons:

1. Higher Stakes: Unfortunately, in Federal Court, the stakes are higher. A case that would typically receive probation in State court often receives prison time in Federal Court.  A case that might involve several years of prison in State Court will often face decades of incarceration in Federal Court. Do NOT make the mistake of thinking that a Federal prosecution will end in the same way as a State prosecution.  Federal Court is the big leagues and if you blow it off or dont take it seriously – you are likely to have plenty of time to lament this mistake while in a Federal prison.
2. Jurisdiction and Scope: Federal cases often involve violations of federal statutes, which can be more complex and far-reaching than state laws. These cases are prosecuted by federal agencies like the FBI, DEA, and IRS, which have extensive resources and expertise.
3. Resources: Federal court procedures differ significantly from state courts. Federal prosecutors are far more experienced than their County counterparts.  Federal prosecutors also have much smaller caseloads and significant resources.  Attempting to merely overwhelm  and exhaust the Federal government is a strategy that is often bound to fail.
4. Expertise: The federal government has vast resources at its disposal, including specialized investigators and expert witnesses. This means that defending a federal case requires a higher level of expertise and often more extensive preparation and investigation.
5. Sentencing Guidelines: Federal sentencing is governed by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which are designed to ensure consistent and fair sentencing. However, these guidelines are complex and can result in harsher penalties compared to state sentencing. These guidelines take into account various factors, including the severity of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history. While they aim to promote fairness and consistency, they also limit the discretion of judges, often leading to more severe sentences. Navigating the complexities of federal criminal defense requires a skilled attorney who can effectively challenge the prosecution’s case and advocate for the best possible outcome. With Josiah Swinney on your side, you can be confident that your defense is in capable hands.

Click the following links for additional information about theFederal Sentencing Guidelines,Indiana Federal Criminal Defense or Federal Drug Charges in Indiana.

White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer in Indiana

Josiah Swinney is a distinguished attorney focusing on white collar criminal defense, with experience representing clients in high-stakes litigation and complex matters. His career is marked by a commitment to excellence, a deep understanding of the law, and a relentless pursuit of positive outcomes for his clients. White collar criminal defense is generally more complicated than traditional criminal litigation, because of the intricacy of the underlying background of many white collar crimes. Call Josiah if you have questions about any of the following areas of law:

• Fraud and Embezzlement: Defending clients accused of financial crimes, including securities fraud, healthcare fraud, and corporate embezzlement.
• Insider Trading: Representing individuals and corporations in cases involving allegations of illegal trading based on non-public information.
• Money Laundering: Providing defense against charges of concealing the origins of illegally obtained money.
• Bribery and Corruption: Defending clients in cases involving allegations of bribery, kickbacks, and other forms of corruption.
• Regulatory Compliance: Advising clients on compliance with federal and state regulations to prevent legal issues before they arise.

If you are facing white collar criminal charges, you need an experienced and dedicated attorney by your side. Contact Josiah Swinney today for a consultation and take the first step towards protecting your rights and securing your future. Click the following link for more information about White Collar Criminal Defense in Indiana.

Forfeiture Litigation Attorney in Indiana

In some cases, the government threatens not only the Client’s liberty, but also the Client’s financial assets, through the process of forfeiture.  Government actors may try to seize your possessions, including your house, your case, your 401k or other retirement assets, real property, and bank accounts. A prosecution for even a low level drug crime can result in a Client being left penniless by the time that police departments and prosecutors divide up your financial assets like pirates distributing plunder. Josiah Swinney can help protect your liberty as well as your assets.

One of Josiah’s early mentors was Jeff Cardella, the attorney who obtained a Federal Court order banning Indiana Law Enforcement from enforcing the Indiana Forfeiture Law Due to violations of the Due Process Clause.  Having a chance to work closely with Jeff Cardella gave Josiah a better understanding of how to properly defense a forfeiture case – by not only addressing the factual defenses of the case – but by also going on the offensive with attacks based on Constitutional arguments. If you are facing criminal charges or the threat of asset forfeiture, don’t navigate this challenging time alone. Contact Josiah Swinney for a free consultation and take the first step towards protecting your liberty, your rights and protecting your assets.

Click the following link for more information about State Forfeiture in Indiana or Federal Asset Forfeiture Litigation in Indiana.

Call Indiana Criminal Attorney Josiah Swinney for a free Consultation 

DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an Indiana Criminal Defense attorney or attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.  Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.