ILNews

Court amends public accessibility, other rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has revised its administrative and appellate rules governing how trial courts make records publicly accessible and how appeals are handled in certain cases requiring confidentiality.

Orders dated Oct. 6 dictate access to court records and says trial courts may manage access to audio and video recordings of its proceedings to the extent that may be deemed appropriate and not interfering with court operations. Justices reached a decision on the issue late last week during a weekly conference.

When a trial judge seals a portion or entire case, that decision carries over to the appellate courts unless the appellate court decides otherwise.

At the appellate level, the clerk is required in certain confidentially bound cases - such as juvenile, paternity, and termination of parental right cases - to make the appellate chronological case summary publicly accessible but is able to change the party names "in a matter reasonably calculated to provide anonymity and privacy."

That confidentially extends to appellate arguments and hearings, where attorneys will refer to the case and parties as identified on the record and not be able to disclose anything excluded from public access.

In studying this issue during the past year, the Indiana Supreme Court's Records Management Committee had originally discussed the possibility of creating a second docket that would be publicly accessible in order to shield the parties, as well as the attorneys involved in the case. That is not happening, according to the court order and the committee's chair, Justice Brent Dickson.

"This doesn't attempt to create a formula," Justice Dickson said. "It's basically an operational call by the clerk, and the clerk is to come up with what they find appropriate for designations to meet the rule and comply with statutory obligations."

In the order, the court also amended its rule regarding court record security and added commentary that includes examples of what judges can do to ensure recordings aren't altered.

"The court is required to preserve the integrity of audio and video recordings of court proceedings," the rule states, adding that options include supervised playback for listening or copying, creating a copy of the record for use during playback, and notifying the involved parties about the accessed record.

Rule revisions take effect Jan. 1, 2009. Both the appellate rule order and the administrative rules order can be found listed on the state judiciary's website.

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT