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. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  2. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  3. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  4. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  5. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

ADVERTISEMENT