Daniel Brewington, Appellant (defendant) v. State of Indiana, Appellee (plaintiff)

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that speech criticizing judicial participants, including hyperbolic accusations harming reputation, is constitutionally protected absent proof of actual malice when it concerns public officials or matters of public concern. It nevertheless upheld the defendant’s convictions for intimidating the judge and attempting to obstruct justice by threatening the psychologist because, viewed in context, his conduct constituted true threats intended to cause reasonable fear for physical safety. The court also held that any defects in the general verdict and jury instructions were invited by a reasonable defense strategy and did not establish fundamental error or ineffective assistance.