ILNews

Courts to allow cameras for National Adoption Day

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Selected courts around Indiana have been granted permission through an order of the Indiana Supreme Court to allow cameras to record and broadcast events in observation of National Adoption Day.

The annual event is Nov. 23. Leading up to that day, several courts have planned events in which cameras are authorized. Here is the schedule and location of participating judges:

Friday, Nov. 15, 1 p.m.: Henry Circuit Judge Mary Willis, 1215 Race St., Room 340, New Castle.

Wednesday, Nov. 20, 9 a.m.: Tippecanoe Superior Magistrate Sean Persin, 301 E. Main Street, Third Floor, Lafayette.

Thursday, Nov. 21, 8:30 a.m.: Allen Superior Judge Charles Pratt, 715 S. Calhoun Street, Room 208, Fort Wayne
 
Thursday, Nov. 21, 8:30 a.m. (CST): Vanderburgh Superior Judge Brett Niemeier, 1 N.W. Martin Luther King Blvd., Room 129, Evansville.

Friday, Nov. 22, 9 a.m.: Grant Superior Judge Dana Kenworthy, 101. E. 4th St., Suite 310, Marion.

Friday, Nov. 22, 1 p.m.: Starke Circuit Judge Kim Hall, 53 E. Washington St., Knox.   

The Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals webcast their arguments, but Indiana trial courts do not allow cameras to record proceedings. The justices permitted cameras in select trial courts during an 18-month pilot project that concluded at the end of 2007, but didn’t take any action on the matter after a report was submitted in 2008 to them. Just six proceedings were recording in eight courts statewide.

But pilot projects have been launched recently that, while not allowing news cameras in, will film proceedings.

Last year, the justices announced that proceedings will be recorded in three courts – one each in Allen, Marion and Tippecanoe counties – and will serve as the official transcript. The Indiana Supreme Court also instituted a pilot program in Lake County that allows for recording of certain proceedings, which are later posted on the Times of Northwest Indiana’s website for viewing.
 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT