ILNews

Vanderburgh County requests new court magistrate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seated alone at the table in front of the Indiana General Assembly’s Commission on Courts, Vanderburgh Circuit Judge David Kiely recently asked for a new magistrate in his court.

Unusual this year is that Vanderburgh County is the only county to come before the commission making such a request. Equally unusual will be if Vanderburgh County has to ask only once.

The Legislative Council assigned the Commission on Courts the sole duty of reviewing the county’s appeal for a new judicial officer. In previous years, counties have had to come before the panel for several years in a row before a bill adding a judge or magistrate passed through the Legislature.

kiely Kiely

Getting the commission’s recommendation, while not required, is viewed as giving the county’s request more weight in the Statehouse. However, even with the commission’s approval, whether a bill passes depends on the condition of the state budget.

Commission chair Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, acknowledged counties can get tired of repeatedly having to ask for more judges and magistrates only to then be denied by the Legislature.

“It’s frustrating to that county that’s asked for it, but to us as legislators, our primary job is to pass a balanced budget,” Steele said. “… If we can’t afford it, we can’t afford it. It’s easy to say no when you’re broke.”

Kiely is confident the commission and the Legislature will give their thumbs up to adding a magistrate.

He pointed out that although the caseload has grown substantially, Vanderburgh Circuit Court has been operating for several decades with one judge and one magistrate. Currently the court’s two judicial officers are handling the work of four.

“I’m optimistic that the commission will recommend the request for the new judicial officer for the Circuit Court,” Kiely said. “I’m very optimistic that our local representatives will push the bill and pass it.”

‘Numbers aren’t going down’

On average, Vanderburgh Circuit Court handles 1,600 major felony cases each year on top of 750 major civil cases. Trials start at 8 a.m. Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays while other matters are handled in court daily at 9 a.m. and 1 p.m.

Two-thirds of all felony cases in Vanderburgh County appear in the Circuit Court.

“I truly enjoy the court and the workload,” Kiely said, “but the numbers aren’t going down.”

The Evansville Bar Association board of directors was surprised at Vanderburgh County’s caseload, said Scott Wylie, association president.

Local attorneys have complained about the “fairly significant delay” in getting a hearing and a trial. The understaffing and rising demand are apparent every day, but the board was still shocked by the state data.

According to the Division of State Court Administration, Vanderburgh County was the 4th highest in Indiana in terms of severity of need for more judicial officers. The 2012 Weighted Caseload Measures shows the 14 judges and magistrates in Vanderburgh Superior and Circuit courts doing the work of just over 22.

Vanderburgh County is expected to move into 3rd place soon because that slot’s current holder, Johnson County, got its request granted for a new judge through the General Assembly.

In the Circuit Court, Kiely and Magistrate Judge Kelli Fink each handle a weighted caseload of 1.93 which equates to enough work for 3.87 judicial officers, state statistics show.

Seeing the hard numbers and knowing the demand firsthand prompted the bar association board to write a letter of support for the new magistrate.

The delays in getting into court can create more difficulties or compound the current problems for the litigants, Wylie said. For example, landlords can go months without rent, and litigants can get pushed into personal bankruptcy while waiting to get before a judge.

Such a situation, Wylie said, is especially frustrating for attorneys who want to help their clients but can do nothing about the wait.

Kiely maintained the Circuit Court does not want people to have to wait and is working to prevent that from happening. He said the backlog has not resulted in individuals being denied due process.

“I truly believe we are one of the most efficient courts in the state,” he said. “We’ve just reached a point where we need another judicial officer.”

Budget constraints

wylie Wylie

When Hendricks Superior Judge Robert Freese testified before the commission in 2012, he told the legislators his county had made the request for additional magistrates for the past two or three years.

Freese was not alone. Prior reports highlight counties appearing year after year, especially during the economic recession, requesting new judges and magistrates.

The commission typically approves the requests, although Steele and Rep. Kathy Richardson, R-Noblesville, maintain the panel is not a rubber stamp. Along with articulating the need for another judicial officer, the commission wants to know if the county council and the local bar association support the request, and if the county is committed to building any additional space that is needed for the new judge or magistrate.

Since the Division of State Court Administration has been providing the weighted case-load measures, the commission has a better understanding what is happening across the state, Richardson said. The reports allow the commission to compare the caseloads between counties.

Fiscal concerns and tight state budgets in recent years are mostly blamed for the courts not getting their requests fulfilled. With a little breathing room opening in the state’s finances, Steele was able to get his measure, Senate Enrolled Act 486, approved during the 2013 session. This bill provided Hamilton, Hendricks and Owen counties with new judicial officers.

“Oftentimes, a court may appear before this committee on two or three occasions and it’s almost like a rite of passage. You’ve been here three times now it’s time to do it,” Steele said. “But it always comes down to budget, if they have enough money for it or not.”

The state picks up the tab for the salaries and benefits of the judges and magistrates. According to the fiscal analysis of Steele’s bill by the Legislative Services Agency, the salary for magistrates in fiscal year 2013 was $104,064 while for judges it was $130,080.

Freese did not criticize the process that counties have to go through to get new judicial officers.

“I’ve been involved in the legislative process a long, long time,” he said. “You kind of know how they work. You just know eventually things move in the right manner and maybe that is the way things need to be.”

County budget considerations influenced Kiely to request a magistrate.

Adding a judge would require the county to pay for an additional court reporter, bailiff and riding bailiff which could boost the expenditures by $250,000 to $300,000 annually. Conversely, for a magistrate, the county would only have to provide a yearly salary supplement of $4,000.

At the commission’s July meeting, Kiely said he has the support of the bar association and noted space is available in the courts building for the new magistrate. He still has to appear before the Vanderburgh County Council to get its approval, but Kiely said the council liaison has told him council members would also support the request.

The Commission on Courts has yet to vote on Kiely’s request. Steele delayed the vote because not all the commission members were present at the meeting.•
 

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. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT