context: See generally 1 Reports of the Debates and Proceedings of the Convention for the Revision of the Constitution of the State of Indiana 135-215 (1850) (lengthy debate over whether to abolish grand jury system). The dearth of dialogue on this provision was typical of the constitutional protections governing criminal procedure.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 643 N.E.2d 296, 299-300
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding that main catalysts for drafting new constitution were state's financial woes and desire to limit General Assembly's ability to enact special laws dealing with local matters
citation_a.sentence: Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 962 (Ind.1993) (analyzing history surrounding Article I, Section 9); see also Indiana Gaming Comm'n v. Moseley, 643 N.E.2d 296, 299-300 (Ind.1994) (concluding that main catalysts for drafting new constitution were state’s financial woes and desire to limit General Assembly’s ability to enact special laws dealing with local matters).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 517 N.E.2d 64, 68-69
citation_b.parenthetical: discussing relatively unknown origins of state constitutional right to meet witnesses "face to face"
citation_b.sentence: See Moran v. State, 644 N.E.2d 536, 539 (Ind.1994) (concluding that state constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was included in Indiana Bill of Rights without much debate); Miller v. State, 517 N.E.2d 64, 68-69 (Ind.1987) (discussing relatively unknown origins of state constitutional right to meet witnesses "face to face”). Indeed, “the Bill of Rights captured only modest attention.”