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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT