Appellate court delays, blame

August 14, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins, who attended today's arguments: 

The Indiana Supreme Court is delving into interesting issues that hit on speedy criminal trials and how appellate court delays have a role in that process. Of course, a comment made during arguments Thursday morning touches on appellate court efficiency and how that does, or doesn’t, impact the system.

Arguments can be viewed online here by clicking on the name of the case, Robert J. Pelley v. State. It is a South Bend case in which justices are being asked to reinstate four murder convictions against a Lakeville man accused of killing his family as a teenager two decades ago. At issue is how the local prosecutors, when filing charges in 2002, filed an interlocutory appeal based on a motion from a third party that sought to stop counseling records from being released to the state for use at trial. The appellate court stopped the trial from happening but held onto the appeal for two years, putting a wrench in the prosecutor’s plan to take it to trial within one year as Criminal Rule 4 spells out. Exceptions are if the defendant somehow caused the delay, or if an “emergency” or “court congestion” occurred. Those terms are being dissected and examined, as well as whether the one-year clock could have been stopped or should get some blanket rule as it relates to interlocutory appeals. The state says it’s not at fault for the delay. So does the defendant.

Toward the end of the arguments, Justice Ted Boehm made an interesting observation when the deputy attorney general was at the podium. He pointed out that the state could have asked for an expedited appeal from the COA, even though interlocutory appeals are already supposed to get that rushed attention. He then pressed the state for not directly calling the appellate court or clerk’s office to bring the timetable and Criminal Rule 4 running clock to the court’s attention. The deputy attorney general said the appellate court knew nothing was happening because of the stay and should have known the Criminal Rule 4 timetable based on the fact that this was an interlocutory appeal

Justice Boehm’s response: “You give us too much credit. You have to spell things out for us. We have a lot of paper to read up here.”

Interesting point, Your Honor. Particularly at a time when there’s discussion about new judges being added to the state’s intermediate appellate court. We’ve seen footnotes in some appellate rulings during the past year that highlight a handful of cases being delayed, specifically between the clerk’s office transmitting a case to the court. Later this month, lawmakers will be discussing whether a new panel should be added to the COA. This case aside, those discussions should be interesting.
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
  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