ILNews

Commission mulls retention, mandates

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legislative study committee on courts delved into a variety of topics on Thursday afternoon, ranging from a new judicial retention Web site, judicial mandates, and the first new court request of the year.

During the two-hour meeting, the Commission on Courts got a glimpse of prototype Web pages being developed that are focused on judicial retention, a move to make the judiciary more transparent for the general public.

The Indiana Supreme Court's Division of State Court Administration will run the upcoming site and will likely make it a link on the main Web site of Indiana's judiciary in coming months, according to the division's Chief Deputy Executive Director David Remondini.

Indiana Court of Appeals Judges Terry Crone and Cale Bradford told commission members that efforts have been under way for about a year to improve the accessibility for the public information already available in various places online.

"This is a consolidation of what's already publicly accessible, and is meant to be a one-stop shop," Judge Bradford said, as the judges displayed the prototype pages on a screen for members to see.

Judge Crone pointed out that these prototype pages are a platform to build on and expand, and that they can be changed in any way the commission or courts see fit to best get the information out to the public and legal community.

From the site, visitors will be able to get a lesson in how the courts operate, a history and rundown of Indiana's retention system, and be able to view biographies about any of the jurists up for retention. The court plans to work with Lexis in providing any articles pertaining to a particular judge, and plans to spend more than $4,000 to offer a search engine that links to particular opinions from a judge and allows the visitor to search those opinions by keyword. A list of webcast appellate arguments will also be available under that particular jurist's name.

Links also will be available for various organizations, such as newspapers, blogs, and specialty bars. The Indiana State Bar Association's annual survey of attorneys on retention judges also will be available, the judges and ISBA president Doug Church said.

Commission members commended the move, as did State Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, who spoke at the meeting about his interest in seeing judicial transparency

During the meeting Thursday, commission members also:

- Discussed judicial mandates and Trial Rule 60.5, and potential changes in state law regarding mandates. This topic sparked discussion of court restructuring, such as the state taking over control of county courts or mandating that the Indiana Attorney General's Office represent any jurists in judicial mandate litigation, rather than allowing the judges to retain private counsel.

- Heard this year's first request for new courts from Johnson Circuit Judge Mark Loyd, who wants a new superior judge in 2012 and another in 2016. The county ranks 14th in the need for new judges based on 2007 weighted caseload measures; the last addition was its third superior court in 1997.

- Heard from Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker, who told commission members about the appellate court's progress in 2007: Five new staff positions were filled last year; the court saw 247 more fully briefed cases than the previous year, issued 359 more majority opinions than the year before; and the court had 295 cases not circulated by year's end, which falls below the national standard of 300 for optimal appellate court efficiency. This year, the court expects 100 percent clearance of an estimated 2,970 cases. Chief Judge Baker did not make a request for a new sixth judicial panel, even though the commission agenda listed the item. That need has been discussed but not officially requested during the past year.

The commission has not yet set a date for its third meeting.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT