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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT