Defendant Calls Judge “Bro”… Then Claims It’s His First Amendment Right!

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:06]Welcome to Solvent Ces and Legal Encounters. All right, today we have a defendant who has a lot of energy in court. He's definitely going back and forth with the judge or anyone that says anything to him. He's also quoting some sovereign adjacent type of arguments in the hearing and he definitely filed a whole bunch of motions and you'll see a lot of paperwork on the table. Let's go.

[00:00:24]All right. This is state versus Terry Oanion 2512 F61177 2603 F6209. Mr. Oan is in court with Mr. Norris. State by defeat the law.

[00:00:39]All right. So, Mr. Oan, have you met with Dr. Chismbbugs? Sir, yes or no?

[00:00:51]You have to answer out loud because we're recording the proceedings, sir.

[00:00:55]>> Yeah. I met with her. I told her, uh, I plead the fifth and I don't answer questions.

[00:01:02]>> Okay.

[00:01:04]>> It's the first amendment. She didn't say, "What is the amendment?" I said, "It's constitutional body of the United States." And she says, "I'm a doctor." I said, "Well, you're also a citizen of the United States. You should know the the law." So, you sent someone to talk about some mental health, but don't even know the law. Court transcripts, and I've been asking for a sixth amendment right to be honored since uh December 7th.

[00:01:29]Court transcripts.

[00:01:32]>> For what? I'm sorry.

[00:01:34]What are you asking for?

[00:01:36]>> I've been asking for everything. I've been denied everything.

[00:01:40]>> Well, you have counsel, Mr. >> Do I? Where?

[00:01:44]>> It's Mr. Norris who's seated right next to you. What council have he what motions has he put in be for you honored except for a mental evaluation. It's 6 months of being being incarcerated.

[00:01:56]>> Well, Mr. Abandon, the purpose of this hearing is to try to move this case forward, sir.

[00:02:02]>> Right. I've been I've been trying that's what you >> wanting to represent yourself or are you wanting board appointed counsel?

[00:02:11]>> Uh you see all these motions that have been put in and then all the other ones.

[00:02:15]>> So, Mr. Banyan, you're not entitled to hybrid counsel. While Mr. Norris is your attorney, the court is not going to act on motions you file.

[00:02:23]>> Well, what's he doing?

[00:02:24]>> Court would act on motions you file if you were self-represented.

[00:02:29]So, I need to know right now how you want to proceed in this case.

[00:02:35]>> So, so now it's up to me how to proceed when I've been asking him to do do everything and he ain't been doing it.

[00:02:40]So, why why is it all a sudden my choice how to move things? I've been trying to get things done uh within the 70-day fast and speed jury trial since December 7th.

[00:02:51]What? What? What is the Why are you asking me questions about what I've been asking for the whole time since December?

[00:02:57]>> Because you've had counsel the whole time, Mr. Aan.

[00:02:59]>> And I every court every court transcripts every time I come to what it's my seventh time in court. And every time I come in here, it's the same same thing. Fast and speedy jury trial.

[00:03:08]>> We're we're going to be moving forward.

[00:03:10]So, the first issue is whether or not Mr. Norris is going to continue to be your attorney.

[00:03:14]>> Is he going to do his job?

[00:03:15]>> That's what I'm trying to get to.

[00:03:16]>> He's a public defender of the law. He has a law degree of law. He's a law student, right?

[00:03:20]>> You have to work with him.

[00:03:22]>> I can't work with someone. When I tell him to do something, he don't do it. He says he he comes What? Let's tell him.

[00:03:28]See, it's a hearsay conversation cuz when he's around me, I need to be monitoring recorded.

[00:03:32]>> Yeah. No. So, we've had discussions, Terry, and I've told you why I won't file these motions. And >> so, why why won't you? because they're they're not good law. Terry, I I >> So to suppress all evidence in fast and speed jury trials.

[00:03:45]>> No, no. Speedy is fine, but we needed to determine your mental competency first and you won't cooperate with that process.

[00:03:53]>> I did cooperate. The law.

[00:03:55]>> Okay. It's the law, bro. I'm not a law student, but I got the I got right here.

[00:04:01]>> Well, let me ask you this.

[00:04:03]>> Citizens right to equal protection, due process, the fifth amendment right in criminal cases. There are thousands of court cases that go along with these amendments to properly understand the way they fit in the wall.

[00:04:12]>> It's been ratified since 1971, bro. And nothing changed.

[00:04:14]>> Bon, let me ask you this.

[00:04:17]The person sitting over there, Miss R, do you know what her responsibility in the court proceedings are?

[00:04:24]>> Her her what?

[00:04:25]>> What's her role in these?

[00:04:28]>> Why are you asking me about her? Who is she? What's your Who are you? A state prosecutor or something? She's >> What does the prosecutor do?

[00:04:36]What is a pro to prosecute you to prosecute somebody to to find conviction to convict you to find a conviction if they have the evidence?

[00:04:45]>> What is >> the same thing? The law. They're attorneys. They're supposed to uphold the law. The constitutional body of the United States. The law. What do you mean? Why you asking me these questions?

[00:04:56]I'm I'm a I'm >> right now I have to establish a record that you are competent to proceed. Okay.

[00:05:03]So, you're either going to cooperate with these proceedings or not.

[00:05:06]>> I am though, right?

[00:05:08]>> Is it It's happening right now.

[00:05:10]>> These are simple questions.

[00:05:11]>> Is that what you want to say?

[00:05:13]>> Mr. Oan, what is the defense attorney's role in a criminal proceeding?

[00:05:18]>> Well, a defense to defend someone, right? Public defender.

[00:05:22]>> And what is the judge's role?

[00:05:24]>> To uh judge the what? The evidence of a crime of some type of sort. All right.

[00:05:34]Competency rests with the court. I'm going to find that you are competent.

[00:05:37]>> That was fast. Other courts take six months.

[00:05:39]>> We're going to cancel the We're going to cancel the Dr. Chismbbugs's evaluation to the extent she has not already done it.

[00:05:48]>> I already talked to her.

[00:05:50]>> Now, Mr. Oan, >> we're going to proceed. I'm going to set both of these matters for trial.

[00:05:58]>> Jury trial.

[00:05:59]>> Yes. you automatically get a jury trial.

[00:06:02]>> Right. All right. Well, what what about uh 35-33-7-5 Indiana code?

[00:06:08]>> Right now, Mr. Norris is your attorney.

[00:06:10]I'm setting this for trial, Mr. Oanion, on Thursday, June 11.

[00:06:15]>> That's crazy.

[00:06:16]>> That's 11:00 a.m. You wanted a quick trial.

[00:06:19]>> Yeah. 6 months ago.

[00:06:22]>> Well, things were delayed, Mr. Oan, because we had the motion filed by your council. just got here.

[00:06:30]>> Now, I'm giving you the earliest available date I can give you. That's Thursday, June 11 at Sit down.

[00:06:38]>> Don't vacate the trial. Take it all. I'm telling you, don't vacate trial last minute. Take it all away. I want all I want all videos of the proof of evidence and everything.

[00:06:47]>> Mr. Norris has the discovery. So, it >> I want to see the videos. I want all videos to the cop car. Like, I put in the motions. You got You'll see the emotions coming. acting on prosay motions while you have an attorney, Mr. Oan.

[00:07:02]>> But I'm telling him I'm telling him right here in front of you just like you just asked me about them questions. I want the cops vid body cam and from December 7th when >> look at everything that we have that was >> okay. Make sure I want Hold on now. I want all uh minute sheets that were I want all victim advocate sheets that were filled out and pressed towards the uh all that too. I want everything every written statement about >> Look at everything that's in discovery.

[00:07:24]Terry, we'll go over it. Okay.

[00:07:25]>> All right. Mr. Do you acknowledge your trial date of June 11 at 11:00 a.m.?

[00:07:32]>> You acknowledge it. I get it. You say >> I'm asking if you acknowledge it. Yeah.

[00:07:35]>> Yeah, I hear you.

[00:07:36]>> All right. And you understand that if you refuse to come over here, we can still have trial without you.

[00:07:41]>> Why would I refuse?

[00:07:42]>> I just have to ask everybody that. You understand?

[00:07:45]>> I mean, you've been refusing my amendment rights since day one. So, what's it talking about refusal?

[00:07:50]>> There are two cases pending. The older case would be the one that goes first, >> the misdemeanor. No, it's not a misdemeanor.

[00:07:56]>> It's a misdemeanor. It's a It's a It's a misdemeanor. Watch. We'll see.

[00:08:00]Everything I tell you is true, bro.

[00:08:01]Okay. You're going to quit calling me, bro.

[00:08:03]>> It's a freedom of speech first amendment. I'm sorry you didn't like it.

[00:08:06]>> All right. Anything else, Mr. Norris?

[00:08:08]>> Not at this time, >> Mr. B. Thank you.

[00:08:10]>> All right. Let Miss Sodto know or whomever know >> that this case is going on June 11th.

[00:08:15]>> Yes, >> all right. All right. We'll be in prep, sir.

[00:08:21]Been prep six months.

[00:08:24]Well, that hearing was definitely interesting and it was a lot of energy in it. So, we'll see what happens when he comes back. If I can catch it, we're going to bring him back and see if he has that same energy when he comes back to court. But anyway, we get ready to go into another hearing where there's a traffic trial going on. And the person's prosay, so we already know how it may go or may not go, but let's see. Let's go, >> judge. And that leaves us with our trial. State of Indiana versus Joshua Stewart, case number 49D 332601.

[00:08:53]AF 001850.

[00:08:55]The defendant is present along with the state central witness, Trooper Cannon.

[00:08:59]Mr. Stewart, if you can turn on your video, please.

[00:09:03]>> There we go. I can see you, sir. All right. So, we're set today for a bench trial. I'm going to start, Mr. Stewart, by swearing you in just to make sure that you're consenting to doing the the trial remotely. So, if you'll raise your right hand, please.

[00:09:17]And sir, do you solemnly swear on the penalties of the perjury? Testimony you're about to provide today will be the truth. the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[00:09:25]>> I swear.

[00:09:26]>> All right. Thank you, sir. If you could please state your name for the record.

[00:09:29]>> Joshua Stewart.

[00:09:31]>> And Mr. Stewart, um, as I've already mentioned, we're set for a bench trial today. You do have the right for the trial to be done in person if you wanted to exercise that right. Do you understand that you have that right, sir?

[00:09:43]>> Yes, sir.

[00:09:44]>> Are you indicating today, though, that you're consenting to doing the bench trial remotely via this WebEx application?

[00:09:52]Yes, sir.

[00:09:53]>> All right.

[00:09:53]>> And is it true that nobody forced you or threatened you to get you to agree to do the trial remotely?

[00:09:59]>> That is correct, sir.

[00:10:00]>> And is it also true that nobody promised you anything in exchange for agreeing to do it remotely?

[00:10:06]>> That is correct.

[00:10:08]>> This is a decision you are making freely, knowingly, and voluntarily.

[00:10:12]>> Yes, sir.

[00:10:13]>> So, we'll show the defendant consents to the remote nature of the trial. Mr. Nampamp, is the state also consenting?

[00:10:20]State consents.

[00:10:22]>> All right. So, we'll show both defendant and state consent to the trial being done remotely. So, just briefly before we get started, sir, um just explain the way the process works, which is the state does have the burden of proof as it relates to any alleged violation.

[00:10:35]Looks like this is a single count unsafe lane movement violation. They do go first when presenting evidence. If at any time you're objecting to the evidence that they're trying to admit, just tell me you object. State your reason. I'll give them a chance to respond. then I'll rule on any objections. You will also have a chance to ask questions of any witness that they might call today. Just remember to make sure it's relevant to what we're here for, which would be the alleged violation. When they're done with their presentation of evidence, you're going to then have your opportunity to tell your side of the story, but the rules that apply to them apply equally to you.

[00:11:09]And after both sides are done presenting their evidence, each side gets to argue whether or not that violation was proven. And then what, if anything at all, the court should order. Do you understand, sir?

[00:11:20]Yes.

[00:11:21]>> All right. And with that, I think we're ready to get started. But before you call your first witness, any preliminary matters from the state's end?

[00:11:28]>> No.

[00:11:29]>> And sir, any preliminary matters we need to address from your end?

[00:11:33]>> No.

[00:11:34]>> All right. Go ahead, Mr. Nan.

[00:11:36]>> Trooper Cannon.

[00:11:37]>> All right. Trooper, if you'll raise your right hand, sir. And do you solemnly swear under the penalties of perjury, the testimony you're about to provide today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, your honor.

[00:11:49]>> Thank you. M >> Cooper, please state your name and spell your name for the record.

[00:11:54]>> Christopher Cannon. C H R I S T O P H E R. Last name C A N O N.

[00:12:01]>> And sir, where were you employed at?

[00:12:03]>> Indiana State Police.

[00:12:05]>> You are a law enforcement officer. Is that correct?

[00:12:07]>> Yes, sir.

[00:12:08]>> Taking you back to January 12th of 2026 at approximately 10:56 a.m. Were you on duty on that date and at that time?

[00:12:16]>> Yes, sir. Did you have an occasion to come into contact with the person you know to be Joshua Stewart?

[00:12:22]>> Yes, sir.

[00:12:23]>> Do you see Mr. Stewart with us today?

[00:12:25]>> I do in a blue polo. Your honor with the record reflect the witness identified the defendant.

[00:12:30]>> Uh the record will self reflect.

[00:12:32]>> Please describe to the court how it is that you came in contact with him.

[00:12:36]>> I was northbound just as Rockville Road entered into 465 northbound around 13.6 or 7. Um, I was in the right lane of 465. His lane was starting to merge into 465 uh from Rockville Road. As it came together, the 465 and Rockville Road entrance ramp uh merged together. I did see him in the right lane. No signal on.

[00:13:01]Um so I just just out of habit I pay attention to traffic coming on to see how they react and how they move over so that I can react myself. As I was watching him, he passed me. um we were coming up on the next exit lane or excuse me the next exit sign. Um so I continue to watch him just cuz I know how traffic is and I just want to be aware of that. So he did as he passed he did not have a signal on. So I continued watching him. He put his signal on at some point um after he passed me and um there's a black SUV in front of me. So, I I backed off a little bit and watched that and as soon as he turned his signal on, he cut in front of that black uh SUV in front of me, which caused him to break and have to slow down as well as myself. Um, and that's kind of how I came in contact with him during that day.

[00:13:46]>> Uh, thank you. And you described for the court that you were traveling northbound on Interstate 465 uh near the Rockville Road uh exit. Is that correct?

[00:13:57]>> Entrance ramp. Yes, sir.

[00:13:58]>> Entrance ramp. Okay. Thank you. Uh, and you observe the defendant's uh vehicle.

[00:14:02]What kind of vehicle was he in?

[00:14:05]>> Um, a box truck delivery van.

[00:14:09]>> Okay. Uh, and his vehicle was entering onto Interstate 465 northbound. Is that correct?

[00:14:16]>> Yes, sir.

[00:14:17]>> Okay. Uh, which you indicated that you were in the right lane. Is that correct?

[00:14:24]>> At the time, yes. until his lane merged in with mine which make make me the second lane once I started observing him.

[00:14:32]>> Okay. Uh is there a single lane that uh enters onto 465 northbound from that location?

[00:14:39]>> Yes, sir.

[00:14:40]>> Okay. And so there was a lane then adjacent to you uh to the right after that uh passing Rockville Road. Is that correct?

[00:14:50]>> Yes, sir.

[00:14:51]>> Okay. Uh, and you indicated that uh in front of you was a black SUV. Is that correct?

[00:14:58]>> Yes, sir.

[00:14:59]>> Okay. Um, and you also indicated that you were paying attention specifically to uh vehicles that were entering onto the interstate just because it's a s habit of yours uh to pay attention to traffic as it comes on. Is that correct?

[00:15:16]>> Yes, sir.

[00:15:17]>> Okay. Uh you indicated that after the defendant's vehicle passed your vehicle, he then turned his signal on. Is that correct?

[00:15:27]>> Yes. After slightly passing the SUV.

[00:15:30]>> Okay. Uh and then uh you indicated that you observed the defendant's vehicle cut in front of the black SUV. Is that correct?

[00:15:40]>> Yes, sir.

[00:15:41]>> Uh you indicated that you observed the black SUV specifically. What, if anything, did the black SUV have to do uh in relation to the defendant's movements?

[00:15:52]>> Uh they immediately break as they got in front of him. Um which kind of which caught my eye when I was watching him.

[00:16:00]>> Okay. Uh and uh based upon what you were able to observe, what was the distance between uh the defendants's uh box truck and that black SUV when the defendant made that motion?

[00:16:16]um less than a half a car length.

[00:16:22]>> And you described that you observed that black SUV apply its brakes. Is that correct?

[00:16:29]>> I did. Yes, sir.

[00:16:30]>> Okay. Uh and then did you initiate a traffic stop on the defendant's vehicle?

[00:16:35]>> I did.

[00:16:36]>> Okay. Uh and did you come into contact with Mr. Stewart at that time?

[00:16:40]>> I did at his passenger door.

[00:16:42]>> Okay. and describe what if any conversation that you had with Mr. Stewart uh upon initiating the traffic stop.

[00:16:49]>> Um I advised him why I stopped him. Um I specifically said that he for his lane movement and um he asked about the black SUV which I mentioned before that stating that he cut in front of him causing the break. Um he said was it the black SUV? I said yes. Um, I was behind the black SUV at the time, which c once you got in front of them, you caused him the break, which caused me to slow down.

[00:17:12]Uh, and I did advise he turned his signal on, but he did not give grace to the traffic to his left before making the lane change to let them adjust and get that distance to allow him in. uh and stated that I mean if anything happened in traffic in that in that area due to that exit coming up in front of us which people would have to get over towards um if he had to break he would have he would end up causing that SUV to pretty much rear end him due to the distance he gave them to react to him getting in front of him.

[00:17:39]Based on what you were able to observe as you were traveling northbound on Interstate 465, uh the lane that the defendants entered into on Interstate 465, did that lane also continue northbound or did that all did that turn into an exit lane for the next exit ramp?

[00:17:59]>> It turns into a next it it continues northbound, but I believe you have a mile at that area until the exit is approaching.

[00:18:09]Okay. Um, and you did issue a citation under Indiana Code 9-21-8-24 uh A3 for an unsafe lane movement. Is that correct?

[00:18:22]>> Yes, sir.

[00:18:23]>> All these events occur in Indianapolis, Marian County, Indiana.

[00:18:26]>> Yes, sir.

[00:18:27]>> No further questions.

[00:18:31]All right, Mr. Stewart, any questions that you wish? Trooper Cannon.

[00:18:36]Um, officer, when you approached my cab, you told me repeatedly that I did not use my turn signal, but in your defense, you did state that I put my turn signal on before I moved lanes.

[00:18:54]>> I have in my notes that I said you did use your turn signal, but you did not give adequate time for the traffic to adjust to you wanting to move lanes. I notate pretty much most of my traffic stops just so for my own memory and that's what I have in my notes.

[00:19:09]>> Okay. Well, no further questions.

[00:19:11]>> He took this to trial for one question.

[00:19:13]>> All right. Just real quick, um just to make sure that I'm processing everything correctly. Um but you're indicating that you were actually heading north on I 465 as the defendant was coming off of the the Rockville Road ramp. Is that correct?

[00:19:30]>> Yes, sir. All right. So, he was merging.

[00:19:34]You're indicating he didn't use his left turn signal to initially um move into his lane on I465. Is that what you're saying? He where you're saying he failed to use the turn signal?

[00:19:45]>> No, sir. I never said he failed to use it his his lane movement from the far right lane as he entered after he entered on the interstate to get into the second lane from the right in front of a black SUV that was ahead of me.

[00:19:58]>> All right. So, he initially was in the far right lane and then he passed.

[00:20:02]You're indicating this black SUV, put a signal on, but I think you're indicating less than a car length distance before he merged into um into that lane, which you're saying prompted the SUV to break, which prompted you to break. Is that correct as far as the causal chain?

[00:20:19]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:20:20]>> Okay. And I think those were the only questions that I had. Any questions on the court's questions, Mr. Namp?

[00:20:33]>> Not on the court's questions. I do have a rebuttal question based upon the defendant's question.

[00:20:38]>> Oh, I'm so sorry. That that's a valid point. Um, you're going to be free to ask questions on the court's questions, Mr. Stewart, but I do need to give Mr. Eamp an opportunity to ask redirect before I ask that question. And so that was the corsair. Go ahead, Mr. Nikamp with your uh redirect and then we'll let him ask whatever questions he might have on mine and your questions.

[00:20:57]>> Sure. Uh trooper, you talked about in terms of your conversation with the defendant and stated that you did to the defendant that he did not give adequate time uh in terms of notifying I assume presumably traffic via that signal being activated. Is that fair to say?

[00:21:17]>> Yes, sir. Uh, and when we say adequate time, can you kind of put that into perspective for the court in terms of you observe the defendant activate his turn signal in relation to how much time passed uh between he made that movement in front of the black SUV?

[00:21:35]>> Maybe a half second to a second after he turned it on. At least when I noticed the signal turn on.

[00:21:41]>> So, it's pretty much immediately after he turned it on.

[00:21:45]>> That's all I had.

[00:21:46]>> All right. Thank you. And so, Mr. Stewart, I asked a question as far as your direction of travel initially and then sort of the sequence of events as outlined by the trooper. And then Mr. Damp asked him a question about the turn signal being placed on and the timing between when it was activated and you merged into the lane. So, you're free to ask questions if you wish to the trooper based on any of those topics.

[00:22:14]What would be an appropriate allotted amount of time after activating a turn signal that I would be allowed to move into said lane in front of traffic?

[00:22:24]>> Is that a question for me? I'm sorry.

[00:22:26]>> Yes. I'm sorry.

[00:22:28]So again, it's it's situational, but most of the time when you're putting your signal on, it's to signal traffic um to allow them to see and understand what's going on so that they can then again adjust their speed and or back off to allow you in safely so that they don't have any to give them that grace that if something does occur as you're getting in front of them, it's not enough space, they can stop if you have to stop immediately instead of having that less to no space to actually react to you having to break immediately if you're merging in front of them without adequate space or time for them to slow down as you're putting your signal on, if that makes sense.

[00:23:02]>> It does. Yes.

[00:23:05]And you were aware that the traffic ahead of me was very minimal. It was mostly next to me and beside me, correct?

[00:23:14]There wasn't anything in front of me as far as I would need to stop for.

[00:23:20]Right. But the issue here is, well, I'm behind you and the black SUV. So, pretty much once you got in front, I couldn't see in front of you. Um, but again, my the issue was with the the black SUV having to react to you cutting in front of them and having to slow down due to your lane change.

[00:23:40]>> Okay.

[00:23:41]>> Any other questions you had for him?

[00:23:44]>> Not at this time. No.

[00:23:46]>> All right. Um, thank you. Oh, I did have one additional question. Again, I'm just trying to get the timing down. As far as the breaking, obviously, there's a a difference between just a a small gradual breaking and um having to actually um apply some pressure. Can you just describe for the court um the degree to which the vehicle in front of you had to slow down um when the defendant merged?

[00:24:11]>> It wasn't drastic, but it was enough to where I I had to react to it. It wasn't like a slamming of brakes if rush hour of traffic, but again, it was enough to where they were on the brake for a few seconds before before he actually fully got in front of them.

[00:24:24]>> Understand? So, if you hadn't adjusted your speed, you're indicating you would have ran into the back of the vehicle in front of you.

[00:24:31]>> I would not have with the Are you meaning that the amount of breaking they have committed?

[00:24:38]>> I'm sorry, sir. I'm saying I'm saying as far as the the speed is concerned, um my understanding is you're saying you had to break because the vehicle in front of you had to break when the defendant cut over in the box truck.

[00:24:51]>> And again, I suppose my question is that had you not adjusted your speed by breaking, you're indicating that because the vehicle had to break in front of you, you would have potentially run into the back of that vehicle. Is that correct?

[00:25:01]>> Correct.

[00:25:02]>> Okay. Just trying to clarify kind of >> I'm sorry. I couldn't understand. I'm sorry. how abrupt it was and how much you had to potentially adjust in order to avoid a collision. All right, Mr. Nampamp, any questions on those questions from the court?

[00:25:17]>> No.

[00:25:18]>> All right. And sir, um, Mr. Stewart, any questions for the trooper based on what I just asked him?

[00:25:26]>> Um, no.

[00:25:28]>> Okay. All right. Any additional witnesses? Mr. Nikas.

[00:25:31]>> All right. So, at this time, Mr. Stewart, the state has rested. I've already sworn you in, so whenever you're ready, you're free to present your own evidence.

[00:25:43]When uh I was approaching the Rockville Road exit onto 465 northbound, I had waited until the dividing wall had um ended before I could potentially move into traffic to actually activate my turn signal and when the lanes allowed me to, meaning the solid line broke and I was able to move over the SV the SUV behind me. Um, I noticed that was a was at a relatively good distance to the rear end of my vehicle and was refusing to slow down or even notice my signal. So, after a few moments of time, I'm not currently aware of how much time it was, but I did give some time before deciding to move in front of the SUV before my lane ended in the 10th Street exit.

[00:26:52]And according to the officer, I did not witness any heartbreaking or anything of that nature.

[00:26:58]>> He wouldn't see heartbreaking because it's behind him. But the officer hit his lights and proceeded to pull me over and explained to me several times that I did not use my turn signal at all. And I just cut into traffic right after um approaching the uh on section from the exit. And at that time, I thought I had given the SUV plenty of time to either back off or at least change lanes as my vehicle is limited to 65. And I had had hit maximum speed and I couldn't go any faster. And because there was more traffic behind him, I decided to not slow down, but to continue to move over into traffic with my turn signal on. It sounds like he just backed the officer's testimony. I >> I'm still listening. I just I don't want to presume when you're done. So, you can continue until you uh tell me that you've completed. Just have >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh I've completed.

[00:28:04]>> Okay.

[00:28:05]>> Okay. So, I may have some questions, but Mr. Namp, I'll let you go first, obviously.

[00:28:11]>> Uh yes. Uh Mr. Stewart, you testified that you had entered on 465 northbound from the Rockville Road exit. Is that correct?

[00:28:22]>> Correct.

[00:28:23]>> Okay. Um and you also testified that uh your box truck that you were driving uh could go no faster than 65 miles per hour. Is that correct?

[00:28:39]>> Correct.

[00:28:40]>> Um and what is the uh let's see here. I want to back up for just a moment. Um but um you did observe the black SUV that was to the left of you. Is that right?

[00:28:55]>> Correct.

[00:28:56]>> Okay. Um and so uh it was your intention to get in front of the black SUV because there was traffic behind the black SUV.

[00:29:06]Is that correct?

[00:29:09]>> From what I could see? Yes.

[00:29:11]And um you are unaware in terms of how much time elapsed from the time that you activated your signal until the time that you moved over in front of the black SUV. Is that correct?

[00:29:23]>> Yes. Boom. Got him.

[00:29:25]>> Uh you mentioned that you did not witness any heartbreaking or anything of that nature. Uh, but is it correct that you were in front of the black SUV uh when you moved over to the left?

[00:29:43]>> Yes, I was.

[00:29:45]>> Okay. Uh, and so, uh, were you able to see the black SUV's brake lights being emitted, uh, from your vantage point?

[00:29:56]>> No, not at all.

[00:29:57]>> Okay. So, you actually cannot testify as to uh whether or not that black SUV did break. Is that correct?

[00:30:08]>> I can definitely notice if a vehicle should lurch >> while I am moving in front of it and that I did not see.

[00:30:17]>> And when you say lurch, what do you mean?

[00:30:19]>> Leaning forward under sudden braking.

[00:30:23]>> Okay. Uh, and so did you observe the black SUV make any movement that would be consistent with that vehicle breaking?

[00:30:34]>> No, I did not.

[00:30:36]>> Were you looking at the black SUV at the point in time uh that you made your movement into the left lane that would be consistent with that vehicle breaking?

[00:30:52]>> I'm sorry. Could you state that again?

[00:30:55]>> When you made your movement to the left lane, uh at were you uh was your attention on the black SUV when you made that movement over to the left lane?

[00:31:08]>> Yes. To make sure that the vehicle wasn't going to attempt to speed up or anything. To make sure that I was still clear. Yes.

[00:31:15]>> Okay. Uh, and do you observing the black SUV, when you made that movement, did that black SUV have to slow down based upon your movement in front of the vehicle?

[00:31:27]>> Not that I witnessed. No.

[00:31:28]>> And so, it's your testimony this afternoon that the black SUV maintain the exact same speed that you observed the vehicle to be after you passed it.

[00:31:38]maintain speed or at least let off the gas to coast behind me, but definitely didn't break hard or >> So, my question to you was, did that vehicle have to slow down? So, did you observe the vehicle, the black SUV, slow down after you entered into the left lane?

[00:31:54]>> No, sir.

[00:31:56]>> Did you observe the trooper's vehicle when you made that movement over to the left lane?

[00:32:03]Um, I did not I did not see the trooper actually.

[00:32:12]>> And you previously testified that uh you were at a relatively good distance to the rear end of the vehicle.

[00:32:23]What does that mean?

[00:32:27]means I had adequate space to move in front of the vehicle without them well without requiring them to change or alter their movement at all.

[00:32:39]>> So, are you unaware today in terms of what that adequate space or what that relative good distance was between your vehicle and the black SUV?

[00:32:51]Uh, as far as I'm aware, it's about half a vehicle length, maybe more.

[00:32:55]>> Uh, when we're talking about a vehicle length, what is the length of a standard uh, passenger vehicle >> should be about 10 to 12 feet in length.

[00:33:13]And so it's possible that length between your vehicle uh and the black SUV was perhaps as minimal as five or six feet, perhaps more. Is that correct?

[00:33:28]>> Yes.

[00:33:29]>> Would it be fair to say that it was no greater than a standard passenger vehicle length of 10 to 12 feet?

[00:33:36]>> Yes.

[00:33:36]>> And you had previously testified that you were traveling at a speed of 65 mph.

[00:33:42]Is that correct?

[00:33:43]>> Correct.

[00:33:44]>> I don't have any further questions.

[00:33:46]>> All right. Thank you. Um, so you were asked a series of questions by the state. So if there's any additional evidence you want to present in response to those questions, you're free to do so at this time. Mr. Stewart, any additional >> Yes, that's for you.

[00:33:58]>> I apologize as a redirect, but you're obviously you can't ask yourself questions. So this is where you get a chance to respond to the questions that the state asked as far as presenting additional evidence on those topics.

[00:34:12]Okay. Um, I was wanting to ask why the uh, this is directed at the trooper. Why the, uh, >> this isn't a chance to ask the trooper questions.

[00:34:24]>> Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:34:25]>> This is a chance for you to respond with new evidence or additional evidence based on the questions you were just asked by the state.

[00:34:33]>> Oh, no. I have no questions.

[00:34:35]>> All right. And you are your only witness today, correct?

[00:34:39]>> Yes, sir. All right. So, any rebuttal, Mr. Nikan?

[00:34:43]>> Uh, just briefly, your honor. Go >> ahead.

[00:34:46]>> Uh, trooper, did you hear the defendant's testimony this afternoon?

[00:34:51]>> Yes, sir.

[00:34:52]>> The defendant did testify that a standard passenger vehicle is approximately 10 to 12 feet in length.

[00:34:58]Do you have any reason to disagree with that?

[00:35:02]>> I personally don't know the exact length. I think maybe it's two or four more feet longer, maybe.

[00:35:08]>> Okay. So certainly possible it could be anywhere from 12 to 16 feet based upon what you know a passenger vehicle to be.

[00:35:15]>> Yes.

[00:35:15]>> Okay. Uh and what would you expect to see in terms of uh that distance from one vehicle to another when that vehicle is changing lanes on Interstate 465 at a speed of 65 miles hour?

[00:35:36]Um, in my experience and what I practice myself is at least the car length because again 465 has a tendency to have braking suddenly for no reason especially towards exits and entrance ramps. If you have to stop at 65 miles an hour most likely you're slamming on your brakes which people have to react to then therefore possibly can cause a crash.

[00:35:57]>> Okay, I don't have any further questions.

[00:36:00]>> Thank you. And Mr. Stewart, any questions for Trooper Cannon based on those? He was just asked by the state.

[00:36:06]>> Uh, no, not at this time.

[00:36:08]>> Right. Thank you. And with that, I believe we've reached the conclusion of evidence. And so now we can go on to argument. Mr. Nap, >> your honor, the state of Indiana has proven the violation by preponderance of the evidence. This is a civil case and the burden of proof. Uh, and a civil case is proof by preponderance of the evidence. Meaning, is it more likely than not that the violation occurred?

[00:36:32]And if the court looks at Indiana code 9-21-8-24 A3, it does state a person may not change from one traffic lane to another unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety. Before making a movement described in the section, a person shall provide notice of the person's intent by giving an appropriate stop or turn signal in the manner provided in sections 27 through 28 of this chapter. Uh and so the question then becomes for the court this afternoon based upon the evidence that it's heard uh did the defendant comply with 921824 A3 uh in providing notice of the person's intention by giving that turn signal.

[00:37:12]Obviously there's not a contention in this uh case this afternoon that the defendant did not activate his turn signal. The question then becomes, did he provide notice of the person's intent uh of his intent to then move from one traffic lane to another? Uh and so uh based upon the evidence the court heard this afternoon, Trooper Cannon testified that he observed the defendant's vehicle enter on Interstate 465 uh with a black SUV that was in front of Trooper Cannon. We know that vehicle had to break uh as the defendant moved from the right lane into the left lane. And uh Trooper Cannon estimated that the distance between uh the defendants's vehicle and that black SUV when he made that movement was less than half a car length. Uh and then we also heard the testimony this afternoon from the defendant uh that he was unaware in terms of how long it is that he had activated his signal. Uh he said that he was unaware of how much time it was even when the turn signal was activated. And he also testified uh that there was uh uh half a vehicle length maybe more. Uh and so we the court obviously heard the questions from the state in terms of what the defendant believes that standard passenger vehicle to be of 10 to 12 ft. And so it's certainly possible based upon the defendant's testimony this afternoon that that distance was 5 to 6 ft in distance uh when the defendant speed was traveling at 65 mph on Interstate 465. Obviously, vehicles uh traveling and changing from one lane to another uh there they have a couple of options and uh Mr. Stewart chose the option where he chose to make that movement in front of that black SUV causing that black SUV to have to apply its brakes and trooper cannon to apply his brakes. Trooper Cannon testified that uh had he not break uh Trooper Cannon's vehicle could have collided with that black SUV that was in front of him. Uh and so that was the movement that Mr. Stewart chose to make. But Mr. Stewart could have also slowed down to allow those vehicles to then pass to then make that movement into the left lane to continue northbound on Interstate 465. Uh and then we also heard from uh trooper Canon that he observed that signal to be activated for approximately a half a second to a second. And so, is it reasonable under Indiana Code 9-21-8 uh- 24 A3 that that black SUV would be on notice of the intent of the defendant's vehicle to make that lane movement when that signal is activated for a half second to perhaps a second as the defendant is traveling northbound on 465 at a speed of 65 miles hour. Uh, and Trooper Cannon also testified that for that specific uh on an interstate highway with that speed of 65 miles per hour, uh, he would expect that distance to be at least a car length in distance. And he testified that based upon his experience, that would be uh, a distance of 12 to 16 ft in length. Uh and so the state has proven the violation by a prepoundonderance of the evidence because we know that that stop that distance between the defendant's vehicle and uh the black SUV was uh less than half a car length of approximately 5 to 6 feet in distance. Uh, and based upon the defendant's uh, lack of knowledge in terms of how long it was that his signal was activated, the only evidence before the court this afternoon is Trooper Cannon's testimony that the signal was activated for a half of a second, possibly a second. Uh, that is certainly not enough notice for drivers to be aware of the defendant's intention to make that movement into the left lane.

[00:41:12]The state has proven the violation by preponderance of the evidence. The state would request the court enter judgment for the state and against the defendant uh and assess a minimum finding cost of $175 to be paid to the Marian County clerk no later than uh September 18th, 2026. Thank you.

[00:41:29]>> Did he just do a mic drop?

[00:41:31]>> Thank you, Mr. Namp and Mr. Stewart. Any argument on your own behalf, sir?

[00:41:44]I guess not. No, >> this is your opportunity. So, they've made theirs. You're free to make them.

[00:41:52]So, go ahead if you want to if you want to have the chance.

[00:41:55]>> I do apologize. This is my first time doing anything like this. Um, even though I was unaware of how long my turn signal was activated, the trooper in question told me several times while handing me the ticket that the reason I was getting the ticket was because I did not activate my turn signal.

[00:42:15]>> Just leave it alone. And I do believe whether whether or not I know the exact time that my turn signal was active. I gave adequate time for that SUV to back off and they chose not to. And I understand that I am also in a company vehicle that's also very large and I need to be a little bit more delicate about my movements in said vehicle. But I don't think it was that aggressive by any means.

[00:42:51]>> Okay. So, here's what I'm going to do. I again, I understand the position of both parties. I'm going to take some additional time to think about my decision before I ultimately reach it.

[00:43:00]So, I'll take this under advisement.

[00:43:02]Parties are free to submit proposed orders. I'll probably have a decision out sometime here in the next week. you know, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. Um, as far as whether or not the behavior that has been described in the evidence is such that it rises to the level of an unsafe lane movement.

[00:43:19]Anything else on the state's behalf, Mr. Namp?

[00:43:23]>> Uh, nothing further from scene.

[00:43:25]>> All right. And Mr. Stewart, anything else or any questions on your own behalf?

[00:43:30]Um, when when you say you'll have a week or two to decide what you want to do, how would I find out your um your decision?

[00:43:44]>> You'll get notice of an order being issued. And you can always check my case.in.gov even before you get that notice if you just kind of want to see if uh the courts reach its decision. But there should be automated notice, whether it's e notice or whether it's paper notice that goes out when the court issues an order.

[00:44:01]>> Okay. And what kind of order would I be expecting? I'm sorry.

[00:44:05]>> It'll be an order where the court indicates its decision. So, if I find they've met the burden of proof, it'll be me saying that, you know, after hearing the evidence, the court finds the states met its burden of proof. And then it would be the order as far as what the fines and costs would be.

[00:44:20]They're just asking for the minimum. So, it'll say fines, cost, due date. If I find they haven't met their burden of proof, it'll be, you know, they did not meet their burden of proof and there's no fines, fees, or anything like that that's owed. So, those would be the two potential outcomes as far as what the court could order.

[00:44:37]>> Okay, >> that concludes our session.

[00:44:39]>> How many of you was expecting to get an ending like that? Now, I think this case went really well with the testimony and everything and how everything was going.

[00:44:47]And that prosecutor definitely asked a lot of good questions to kind of narrow him down into, okay, well, yeah, did you do that or not? Let me know what you think in the comments about how the judge ruled on this, saying that he needed to take it under advisement just to make sure everything is covered.

[00:45:02]Thanks for watching. Give it a thumbs up if you enjoyed both videos. Leave a comment and let me know what's going on with this case. And I'll see you around on the next one.

[00:45:13]Yeah.

[00:45:16]Courtroom quiet, camera on. He came and ready like the flight was already drawn.

[00:45:22]Papers in his hand, attitude in the air.

[00:45:25]Judge on the bench like we're not doing this here.

[00:45:34]We're not doing this here.

[00:45:37]M he said he pleased the fifth. He ain't answering that. Said his rights been denied and he's pushing it back. Talking fast stand in firm trying to take control but the courtroom don't move like the internet rose. He said my lawyer won't file what I gave him to file. Attorney said I told you that law ain't worthwhile. Emotions on the table.

[00:45:59]Arguments getting hot. Judge said choose counsel or represent what you got. You can't have it both ways.

[00:46:06]You can't run your own place.

[00:46:09]You can't keep counsel standing there while you steal the whole case.

[00:46:16]DON'T CALL THE JUDGE, BRO.

[00:46:18]That ain't how this go.

[00:46:21]You can claim free speech, but the still controls. Don't call the judge, bro. Oh, court at your front row. Uh-oh. When the Gavl comes down, everybody's going to know. He said first amendment like that changed the scene.

[00:46:42]Judge said, "I know what you said, but keep it clean." He wanted speedy trial.

[00:46:47]Want emotions heard, but every time he spoke, it was another sharp word. Doctor in the middle, lawyer on defense, judge trying to sort through the whole suspense. competency question hanging in the room. But the case kept moving like a train through the gloom rights on his lips, papers in his grip.

[00:47:09]BUT THE JUDGE wasn't letting the courtroom script slip. Don't call the judge, bro. That ain't how this goes. Uh-oh. You can claim free speech, but the bench still controls. Don't call the judge, bro. Oh, court ain't your front row. Oh, when the devil comes down, everybody's going to know. He said, "I know my rights." Judge said, >> "Here's the line.

[00:47:44]>> Here's the line."

[00:47:45]>> He said, "I need my motions." LAWYER SAID, >> "NOT THIS TIME. NOT THIS TIME. He pushed. They pushed back.

[00:47:54]>> Tension in the frame.

[00:47:56]>> But the car kept rolling and the judge stayed the same.

[00:48:04]Broke ruin court. NO. NO. NO. NO. First amendment.

[00:48:08]>> Still no broke. Broke bro. No. No. No.

[00:48:12]No.

[00:48:12]>> Judge said stop. But he kept that flow.

[00:48:18]DON'T CALL THE JUDGE. BRO, STOP. That ain't how this go. Oh, you can claim free speech, but the still controls. Don't call the judge, bro.

[00:48:33]Ain't your front row when the G comes down.

[00:48:39]Everybody's going to know. Papers in hand, right on repeat. But the courtroom had rules he still had to meet. One word turned a hearing into a show. The judge says, "Don't call me bro.