ILNews

Clark County drug court gets conditional approval

Dave Stafford
March 26, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Clark County Drug Treatment Court participants will continue with programs diverting their criminal cases in favor of treatment, but it’s uncertain whether the troubled program may ever again serve people arrested on nonviolent drug charges.

The Indiana Judicial Center in February took the unprecedented step of suspending one of its certified problem-solving courts. The move came after multiple people were jailed for months without due process and allegations surfaced that drug court staff had made unauthorized arrests or searches of drug court participants.

The caseloads for the court’s approximately 70 participants have been transferred from Clark Circuit 2 Judge Jerry Jacobi to Clark Circuit 4 Judge Vicki Carmichael.

“The participants in the program are still under court orders to do certain things,” said Indiana Supreme Court outreach coordinator Sarah Kidwell. “They’re also still being supervised by case managers.”

Earlier this month, Judicial Center Executive Director Jane Seigel notified Carmichael of the conditions for the court’s continued operations. It cannot accept new participants but has the authority to accept new cases of anyone currently in the program.

Carmichael is to oversee drug court operations and preside over sessions and direct case managers. Additional conditions include:

• A representative of the Clark County prosecutor’s office must attend and participate in weekly team meetings and court sessions.

• A member of the defense bar will serve as an advocate for the legal interests of participants at drug court sessions, and Carmichael will advise each participant of his/her right to legal representation during drug court participation.

• The Judicial Center will review the drug court certification that could include interviews with staff, participants, team members; observation of court sessions and reviews of case management and court files.

• The court’s policies and procedures may be revised to conform with I.C. 33-23-16 governing problem-solving courts.

Kidwell said the Supreme Court, Judicial Center and Clark County court officials are working together, but no plan is yet in place that would lift the drug court suspension. “Any particulars of moving forward are being carefully considered,” she said.

Eight former drug court participants sued Jacobi, various county officials and drug court staff members Feb. 28 and seek to establish a class action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany. The suit, Destiny Hoffman, et al. v. Judge Jerome Jacobi, et al., 4:14-CV-00012, alleges civil rights violations of plaintiffs who said they were subjected to improper detentions, some lasting several months, and other alleged due process violations.

Two Clark County drug court staff members – former director Susan Knoebel, who was fired by Jacobi, and Jeremy Snelling – are named among defendants in the civil suit and have demanded a jury trial.

In the meantime, no disciplinary action related to the drug court had been initiated against Jacobi by the Judicial Qualifications Commission as of March 21. Kidwell said she could not comment about whether any complaints had been received.•

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT