ILNews

Court video pilot project will last through 2013

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The pilot project announced this summer by the Indiana Supreme Court that includes using video transcripts in three trial courts as the official court record will run through Dec. 31, 2013.

Chief Justice Brent Dickson signed an order Sept. 18 that provides detail as to how the video project will work and why the court decided to institute it. Marion Superior Court, Criminal 6 (major felony), Tippecanoe Superior Court 3 (juvenile) and Allen Superior Court (civil) are participating in the pilot, which began in August. Those courts were chosen because they will generate diverse cases for appeal – major felony convictions, termination of parental rights, and civil rulings.

Appellate Judges Cale Bradford, Melissa May and James Kirsch will spearhead the project and participate in the review of the selected cases.

During the pilot project, the participating courts, clerks, court reporters and parties shall comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate and Trial Procedure, with exceptions noted in the order. The court will have to keep a trial event log to indicate where specific portions of the hearing – such as voir dire and jury instructions – begin and end.

Within 30 days of filing the notice of appeal, two copies of the audio/visual recording must be certified by the court reporter and filed with the trial clerk. The order also outlines brief and other filing deadlines.

The order became effective July 1, 2012. Dickson also notes that the project could be extended by further order of the court. The project is officially designated the "Indiana Court Reporting Pilot Project for Audio/Visual Recordings."

Using video transcripts as the record for appeal is just one of three pilot projects that started this summer. The other two projects will cut the transcript filing time from 90 days to 30 days as well as involve electronic filing of the appellate record.

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT