ILNews

Dickson's State of Judiciary highlights interplay of judiciary, Legislature

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson’s first State of the Judiciary address after 27 years on the bench produced a few collegial chuckles as he offered examples of checks and balances and noted lawmakers had rewritten laws in response to at least three Supreme Court opinions in the last year.

“You determine public policy and make the laws, and we follow and apply them, whether we like them or not,” Dickson told a joint session of the Indiana General Assembly on Jan. 23. “And if you disagree with the way we interpret a statute you’ve written, you amend it as you wish. That’s the Indiana way.”
 

dickson-brent-speechbp-15col.jpg Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson, right, delivers his State of the Judiciary address to the Indiana Legislature on Jan. 23 as Gov. Mike Pence looks on. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Dickson later made a plea for greater funding to expand the Odyssey case management system, asking the help of lawmakers who in 2011 rejected a request to increase a $7 case filing fee to $10. The Legislature responded by reducing the fee to less than $5.

Procuring money to expand Odyssey is “one of our most urgent priorities,” Dickson said. “The court intends to do everything we can to bring our Odyssey system as soon as possible to every county that wants it. But this requires more resources. The court really needs help from the General Assembly this session to upgrade the necessary filing fee revenue stream.”
 

long-david-mug Long

Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, paid tribute to Dickson as “an outstanding jurist” in a news conference a day later, but he was doubtful about more money for Odyssey.

“The issue is the cost of it has grown astronomically from what we were originally told,” Long said. Mounting case-filing fees for a variety of purposes “are making it very difficult for us to justify more fees when it’s crushing certain people,” especially those of modest means, he said.

Raising court filing fees is “a little harder sell in the Senate than it used to be,” Long said.


massa Massa

Nevertheless, Justice Mark Massa said he will press for adoption of House Bill 1393, which would raise the automated record-keeping fee from $5 to $10 in most cases. “There are a lot of competing interests for finite state resources,” he said. “Sen. Long and the legislative leadership have got challenges every year in deciding how to allocate those finite resources.

“This project continues to be important to the judiciary,” as a whole, Massa said. Without an increase in Odyssey funding, he added, “our deployment efforts would grind to a halt pretty quickly.”

Massa said the fee increase would generate about an extra $4 million annually for Odyssey expansion. “It would certainly allow us to deploy it in all 23 counties that are on the waiting list right now,” he said. The system is in use in 146 courts in 45 counties, according to Mary DePrez, director and counsel for trial court technology for the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee at the Division of State Court Administration. About 40 percent of Indiana’s caseload is managed by Odyssey.


sullivan-frank-no-robe Sullivan

Massa is the court’s liaison to JTAC, succeeding retired Justice Frank Sullivan, who said he was pleased that Dickson made the case for expanding Odyssey and devoted a fair amount of his address to talking about how it can share information with numerous agencies from local police and state agencies.

“I’m a strong believer in the importance of equipping all Indiana courts with 21st century case management systems and then connecting them to each other,” Sullivan said. “I thought Chief Justice Dickson made the case for that very well. … how many counties are standing in line waiting for Odyssey, and the commitment of the Supreme Court to provide Odyssey to every court that wants it; there was no sense of a kind of top-down mandate.”

Sullivan, who departed the bench this past summer and is a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said the tone of Dickson’s speech was “exactly right.”

“He’s been just a superb member of the Supreme Court for some time. It was nice to see him have this moment in the sunshine,” Sullivan said. He noted a difference in speeches he heard from Shepard over the years compared with Dickson’s address.

Shepard “would spend a whole lot of time on generally three or four topics. Chief Justice Dickson chose to paint a somewhat broader picture of the landscape of what the Indiana judiciary is doing,” Sullivan said.

“A point he made very effectively is there is both an adjudicative and a non-adjudicative role the judiciary plays,” he said. “And the Legislature has a role in that to provide the resources to do that.”

Dickson noted in his address the “massive change” for the court recently, in which he succeeded retired Chief Justice Randall Shepard, and the appointments of justices Steven David, Massa and Loretta Rush in the past several years.“We intend that the ‘new’ court will be a continuance, and even an enhancement, of the things admired in the ‘old’ one,” Dickson said.

But he also acknowledged the massive changes in the judiciary in the time he’s served as a justice. “When I was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court in 1986, it was a very different place than it is now,” he said, noting criminal cases comprised 93 percent of the caseload, and the court heard very few civil appeals.

“The access of everyday Hoosiers to their Supreme Court for such a wide assortment of cases would have been impossible 25 years ago,” he said.

He also looked ahead at some of the key initiatives being undertaken in courts around the state. Juvenile justice reform is a priority for the court, particularly the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative that has rolled out in eight counties and serves 34 percent of the state’s at-risk youth.

“This is a proven model that really works to improve community safety, to get more kids on the right track, to reduce school dropout rates, to reduce juvenile detention and to lower incarceration rates,” Dickson said.

Dickson also made a plea for attorneys to serve Hoosiers of limited means. “We want to encourage and empower Indiana lawyers to more fully realize the vision of their oaths and the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that they serve ‘the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed, or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance.’”•

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. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  2. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  3. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  4. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  5. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

ADVERTISEMENT