ILNews

Chief Justice Shepard gives final State of the Judiciary

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard gave his final State of the Judiciary on Wednesday, recapping not only the past 12 months, but also highlighting court initiatives and changes that have occurred during the quarter century he spent as chief justice.

In his 27-minute speech titled, “On the Way to Something Better,” the chief justice focused on the process of building a more unified and purposeful court system. He detailed achievements that the court and legal community have experienced throughout his tenure.

This was the 25th time Shepard has given the constitutionally required speech to the Indiana General Assembly, and it was his last time doing so before his retirement in March.

“The yesterday of Indiana’s courts lasted largely unchanged over decades, and as in many other states our courts were a collection of silos that rarely connected,” he said. “That began to change about a generation ago, and over time Indiana’s courts have become less like a collection of Lone Rangers and more like a group of colleagues with a common purpose.”

All four of the remaining justices and members of the Indiana Court of Appeals attended, as did dozens of trial court judges and state court officials who watched from the fourth-floor balcony overlooking the House of Representatives. Former Justices Ted Boehm, Myra Selby and Roger DeBruler were also present, along with former Indiana first lady Judy O’Bannon.

Shepard praised court reform efforts to unify state court jurisdictions and allow for more collaboration, including improvements to court technology. He mentioned a statewide case management system that allows women’s shelters direct access to the Protective Order Registry.

The chief justice cited family law and criminal justice as areas where the state judiciary is better equipped to resolve disputes today than it has ever been before. He said Indiana has more volunteer Court Appointed Special Advocates than at any time in the state’s history, with the largest group of 1,010 volunteers being trained in 2011.

Shepard talked about court reform efforts such as simplifying the Indiana Rules of Evidence and ensuring consistent caselaw at the appellate level to provide guidance for trial courts and lawyers, and he said those have helped hold down litigation costs and improve access to the legal system. The chief justice also discussed Indiana State Bar Association efforts to create the first statewide lawyer-leadership academy with the help of Justice Steven David, and credited the Indiana Conference For Legal Education Opportunity with helping the state double the number of minority attorneys practicing in Indiana.

He said the “graciousness” of lawmakers and judges he has worked with over the years “will allow me to leave the stage with full confidence that we will succeed in building Indiana as a safe and prosperous and decent place.

“The scores, if not hundreds of times when members of the General Assembly have been willing partners in improving the delivery of justice have been a great gift,” he said. “Those many moments, and the demonstrated achievements by so many of the men and women on the bench and in the bar, are the reasons why I say that Indiana will have an even better system of justice tomorrow than it has today.”

The full 2012 State of the Judiciary can be viewed online, and an expanded story will appear in the Jan. 20-Feb. 2, 2012, print edition of Indiana Lawyer.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT