ILNews

Court criticizes appellate attorney for not citing material

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision that a man convicted of felony forgery must submit a DNA sample.

But that's only part of today's seven-page decision in James Keeney v. State of Indiana, No. 21A01-0611-CR-495, which goes on to admonish an appellate attorney who filed a brief with uncited material.

In this case, Keeney challenged last year Fayette Circuit Judge Daniel Pflum's order, which said Keeney needed to submit a DNA sample after pleading guilty to forgery and receiving a four-year sentence. Some of that time was suspended and ordered for home detention, and Keeney objected to the order on grounds of a Untied States Supreme Court decision last year. The appeals court agreed with the state that the higher ruling isn't enough to overrule the state law and previous court decisions, and affirmed the sentence.

But the ruling didn't end there.

"Unfortunately, we must call attention to the fact that the appellate attorney for Keeney has filled her brief with uncited material," the court wrote.

"... The importance of proper attribution cannot be understated. While lawyers and judges regularly borrow reasoning from others, both ethics and the appellate rules require that the source be given credit. Nonetheless, Keeney's appellate attorney merely transplanted the [U.S. District Court of Massachusetts'] order into her brief as if it was her own work," the court continued.

The court wrote that the brief's entire "argument" section is a near-verbatim replication of a recent memorandum and order in a case that isn't cited or relied on in Keeney's appeal. The "inadequate" brief did not advance any argument or help Keeney's case, the court wrote.

"We confine our criticism here to an admonishment," the court wrote, noting that it had the authority to strike the brief, order the appellate attorney to receive no fee or return with interest any fee already received, refer the matter to the Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission for investigation of potential rule violation, or to hold the attorney in contempt. "We choose, however, not to sanction Keeney's attorney beyond the reprimand within this opinion."

The attorney called out in the ruling is Sarah Nagy of Indianapolis

"If I made a mistake, all I can do is learn from it and try not to do it again," Nagy said this afternoon, noting she'd not yet read the opinion and was shocked to learn about the admonishment. "No one's perfect, and if we do something wrong, that's why we have judges, to help us learn from it."
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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT