ILNews

COA affirms perjury, misconduct convictions against children's caseworker

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that that a closed hearing on a juvenile proceeding was admissible as evidence in the perjury trial of an Indiana Department of Child Services caseworker.

In Gayle D. Edelen v. State of Indiana, No.26A01-1007-CR-362, Gayle Edelen claimed that her testimony in a closed juvenile proceeding should have been confidential. But the appeals court – citing Indiana Code sections 31-39-1-1(a)(1) and -2 – ruled that the testimony was admissible in Edelen’s perjury trial because it involved an adult charged with a crime.

Gibson Circuit Judge Jeffrey Meade ordered the closed hearing in November 2008 after attorney Lisa Moody filed a motion with his court for a change in placement for her client, M.D., a minor. Moody informed the court that after M.D. fled Life Choices, a placement facility in Evansville, she had been held for one month without a hearing at Southwest Indiana Regional Youth Village of Vincennes (SIRYV), an emergency shelter. Judge Meade had ordered that M.D. should be taken to SIRYV when she was found, but his policy – consistent with Indiana Code Section 31-34-5-1 – was that M.D. should not be held more than 48 hours without a hearing.

Local law enforcement had found M.D. on October 9, 2008, and taken her to SIRYV. On October 17, Edelen asked fellow caseworker Amy Ellis to check on M.D., which she did. M.D. repeatedly asked Ellis the date of the next scheduled hearing, and Ellis told her she would check with Edelen. On November 5, M.D. contacted Moody to tell her she was still being held at SIRYV.

In the closed hearing, Moody asked Edelen if she had ever informed the court that M.D. had been found. Edelen said that she had told Judge Meade on October 9 when he was walking out of chambers – a claim the judge would later contradict during Edelen’s jury trial.

The Indiana Office of the Inspector General launched an investigation of M.D.’s 30-day stay at the emergency shelter. As a result of the investigation, the state filed information against Edelen in Gibson Superior Court, alleging that she had committed three acts of perjury at the November 2008 hearing and an additional act of official misconduct for committing her alleged perjury while testifying in her official capacity.

During her jury trial in June 2010, Judge Meade said Edelen had never informed him M.D. had been found after fleeing Life Choices. He also expressly contradicted her testimony on two other occasions.

The Court of Appeals also cited Indiana Code Section 35-44-1-2(1) in affirming Edelen’s conviction for misconduct, stating she knowingly made a false statement under oath.
 

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