ILNews

Judge wins national award for drug court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Noble Superior Judge Michael J. Kramer was nationally recognized for his work as judge of the Noble County Drug Court. Judge Kramer was named an Advocate of the Year at the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America's National Leadership Forum in Washington, D.C. He received the award at a luncheon Thursday.

The Advocate of the Year award recognizes those who have worked to promote and educate others about community coalitions and the importance of substance abuse prevention and treatment.

In a release, he said he was honored to receive the award.

"Substance abuse not only affects individuals and families directly, but cuts across our communities in many areas, including physical and mental health, public safety, child welfare, academic achievement, and business productivity," Judge Kramer said.

Judge Kramer took the bench Jan. 1, 1991, and has served on the drug court since December 2006. The drug court began as voluntary with probation officers that were interested in taking on two or three participants, Judge Kramer said. Grants have allowed the court to expand to include paid staff, but probation officers who are interested still supervise some participants on a volunteer basis. Since its inception, the drug court has accepted 73 people, he said.

In addition to serving on the drug court, Judge Kramer is a member of the CADCA's board of directors, for which he is treasurer. He's on the Governor's Advisory Panel for the Indiana Grassroots Prevention Initiative, Addictions Advisory Council to the Indiana Division of Mental Health and Addictions, and the board of Noble County PRIDE. Drug Free Marion County named the judge as the Indiana Recovery Advocate for 2009.

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT