ILNews

Abrams: A New Justice Center ? ! ? !

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

jeff abrams ibaThe offices of the Indianapolis Bar Association first learned of the city’s interest in pursuing a Justice Center several months ago when they expressed interest in learning more about our task force work over the last 10 years. However, when some bits and pieces were leaked to the media it was very quickly announced that a new Criminal Justice Center was being considered at a location near the Indianapolis Airport. This announcement sent shivers down the spines of our local judiciary and the Criminal Justice Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association, making it time for our Judicial Center Task Force, which has been involved for many, many years, and some executive officers, to more actively engage with representatives of the Mayor’s Office to learn all that the city had planned for this new facility in a very short period of time. We were very fortunate to have John Kautzman, who has chaired the task force on and off as interest has grown and waned, volunteer his time for this project. He took a very active role in communicating with representatives from the city of Indianapolis and the Mayor’s Office to understand what and where this facility was being proposed.

We quickly convened meetings with representatives from the city to discuss the viability of the airport and the concerns for true access to justice for our citizens. It became very clear to the representatives of the city that the airport location, while financially sound, might not be the best choice, and we encouraged them to reconsider other alternatives in the community. There were numerous meetings to understand the nuances of the project. The combination of the processing center, the jail, the criminal courts, the prosecutor’s office and the public defender’s office in one complex had substantial benefits.

It was around this time that those overseeing the redevelopment of the old GM Stamping Plant had made an announcement that there were developers looking at redeveloping the property for private use. We promptly initiated discussions to understand if there was land available at this site for a Justice Center. The location, being much closer to downtown Indianapolis, made this a very appealing choice as compared to the 12 other locations that had been considered by the city’s consultants.

During the winter months, John Kautzman and I met with different city representatives to continue to discuss and voice the concern that the airport location was flawed. We informed them there needed to be a better location closer to the downtown area in order for the Indianapolis Bar Association, on behalf of the judiciary, our Criminal Justice Section and all other attorneys and paralegals, to support the city’s efforts. Fortunately, the city acknowledged our concerns and, as we understand it, are recommending the GM Stamping Plant as a proper location for the future Criminal Justice Center.

While the IndyBar Board of Directors voted to support this location at this time, there are still a lot of questions to be asked and answers to be provided to our task force before this project can be commenced and completed for the benefit of our community. For example, there are numerous planning elements that should be considered so that it is a better functioning and operating facility for the judiciary, for attorneys and for their clients. The city has hired a consultant to assist with this process. We have been assured there will be meetings and opportunities for our members to review plans and specifications. We will be able to provide input so that if and when this project is completed, it will be a facility that is functional for all of us and continues to make a statement that Indianapolis is a phenomenal place to live and work.•

A Justice Center could be a real plum.
Stay tuned as there will be much more information to come.
Accepting a bad location we will never succumb.
But when it opens, we can proudly beat our bass drum.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT