ILNews

COA reiterates confidential-information filing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals emphasized in an opinion today the proper procedure for filing documents with confidential information, instigated by the fact the appellant's original appendix included a pre-sentence report on white paper and included a Social Security number.

In Joel C. Vaughen v. State of Indiana, No. 79A02-0811-CR-1032, Judge L. Mark Bailey reiterated in a lengthy footnote how information should be filed, what should be excluded, and on what color paper it should be submitted. Joel C. Vaughen's original appendix had a pre-sentence report on white paper, which should be excluded from public access filings pursuant to Ind. Administrative Rule 9(G)(1)(b)(viii). Documents excluded from public access are supposed to be included on light green paper or have a light green coversheet marked "Not for Public Access" or "Confidential."

Sometimes a simple redaction of confidential information is sufficient, such as if a relevant document in a dissolution case includes a bank account number. The number could be redacted without having to include the entire document in a green appendix, wrote Judge Bailey.

"If the information cannot be redacted or if the information is relevant to the issues raised on appeal, then the entire document can and should be included in a green appendix," he wrote.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Vaughen's 12-year sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to deal in cocaine. Vaughen was the ringleader in an operation to sell cocaine and used couriers to lessen the time in which he had the illegal drugs in his possession. The sentence is appropriate given his character, wrote the judge, because Vaughen has never been employed and has four children by three different women. He was also on probation for another drug conviction at the time of his most-recent arrest.

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. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT