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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT