ILNews

Courts to allow cameras for National Adoption Day

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Selected courts around Indiana have been granted permission through an order of the Indiana Supreme Court to allow cameras to record and broadcast events in observation of National Adoption Day.

The annual event is Nov. 23. Leading up to that day, several courts have planned events in which cameras are authorized. Here is the schedule and location of participating judges:

Friday, Nov. 15, 1 p.m.: Henry Circuit Judge Mary Willis, 1215 Race St., Room 340, New Castle.

Wednesday, Nov. 20, 9 a.m.: Tippecanoe Superior Magistrate Sean Persin, 301 E. Main Street, Third Floor, Lafayette.

Thursday, Nov. 21, 8:30 a.m.: Allen Superior Judge Charles Pratt, 715 S. Calhoun Street, Room 208, Fort Wayne
 
Thursday, Nov. 21, 8:30 a.m. (CST): Vanderburgh Superior Judge Brett Niemeier, 1 N.W. Martin Luther King Blvd., Room 129, Evansville.

Friday, Nov. 22, 9 a.m.: Grant Superior Judge Dana Kenworthy, 101. E. 4th St., Suite 310, Marion.

Friday, Nov. 22, 1 p.m.: Starke Circuit Judge Kim Hall, 53 E. Washington St., Knox.   

The Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals webcast their arguments, but Indiana trial courts do not allow cameras to record proceedings. The justices permitted cameras in select trial courts during an 18-month pilot project that concluded at the end of 2007, but didn’t take any action on the matter after a report was submitted in 2008 to them. Just six proceedings were recording in eight courts statewide.

But pilot projects have been launched recently that, while not allowing news cameras in, will film proceedings.

Last year, the justices announced that proceedings will be recorded in three courts – one each in Allen, Marion and Tippecanoe counties – and will serve as the official transcript. The Indiana Supreme Court also instituted a pilot program in Lake County that allows for recording of certain proceedings, which are later posted on the Times of Northwest Indiana’s website for viewing.
 

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT