ILNews

End of an era

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After serving a quarter century as chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, Randall T. Shepard retired on March 23. State and local government leaders; trial and appellate court judges – past and present; local, state and national bar association leaders; former law clerks; and family, friends and associates packed the Indiana Supreme Court courtroom to give the chief justice a heartfelt send-off.

“The Colts without Peyton was hard enough; the judiciary without Shepard I can’t comprehend,” Gov. Mitch Daniels told those gathered. All echoed Daniels’ sentiment – the mark the chief justice has left on the Indiana judiciary has been made with indelible ink.

15col-shepardswearingin.jpg Randall T. Shepard was sworn in as a justice Sept. 6, 1985. (Submitted photo)

Prior to his retirement, Shepard sat down with the Indiana Lawyer to reflect on his 27 years as a justice. Following are excerpts from that conversation.

If you could go back in time and give one piece of advice to the young Randall Shepard just embarking on a legal career, what would it be?

I’d start a little before that. I think I would recommend that Shepard take a course in the Uniform Commercial Code as a law student. It wasn’t on the required list, so, particularly in the beginning, I spent a lot of time when we had a UCC case learning something that I’d have learned in a sounder way if I’d had Ellen Ash Peters as my UCC professor in law school. So I’d tell a young Shepard to be braver, go take a UCC course. You’ll save time later.

What skills or qualities must you see in a lawyer to encourage him/her to consider the judiciary?

For a judge, the ability to sense the difference between the significant and the routine is one of the most important talents. The fact that you have done many similar such cases is a help in deciding the ones that are before you today, but there is also a risk of failing to notice that this one on today’s calendar might be a little different. I’m not sure how one learns that – I guess trial and error makes a difference, staying alert, and not allowing yourself to begin to think of it as processing.

Really great lawyers that I know tend to talk not about my cases, but about Mrs. Jones’ case that I handled for her. The difference is understanding that for litigants, every case is pretty important. You do have to know when it is OK to make a fast decision and move on, but you also have to know when it is time to have your antenna up – is this one that needs a little more attention, or is this one that has a slightly different set of facts – is there another piece of law that applies to this? Good judges pay attention to that difference.

You have served as chief justice during a period of great change in our society. Has the role of local and appellate judges in Indiana changed during the last 25 years?

Judges take a greater sense of responsibility for managing pending cases than they did 25 or 30 years ago. Just a simple practice like holding early pretrial conferences in most civil litigation is something that was not particularly common 30 years ago but is now almost universal. This doesn’t mean the judge tries the case for lawyers, but the judge takes responsibility for managing the “when” and the “how” and, in general, takes responsibility for getting these litigants through the judicial system as promptly as you can, consistent with getting a just result. There were places in our state 30 years ago where a judge never picked up a file until somebody filed a motion, never held a hearing until somebody requested one, or usually didn’t set a trial date until both parties told the court they were ready to go to trial. Judges are much more engaged with lawyers now case by case than they were.

The other great change is the judiciary is interested in the broad role of the rule of law and of courts. … Judges are interested in what the rule of law does for society. You can see this certainly, very vividly, in a field like criminal sentencing. On one level, the object of advocacy is to enforce the law. That is where we all start out. But the broader question is what does criminal law do for society and what is the underlying object of this case. I think most people would say it is to sanction criminal behavior and maximize the possibility that it won’t happen again. … That is why judges, particularly trial judges, are frequently the ones that lead efforts at alternative sentencing and more intensive probation and why they are the ones who decide drug courts are important and create them, because they believe in sanctions across a range of severity, tailored to hold the offender accountable and maximize, to the extent you can, the possibility of non-recidivism. Are you there to decide cases? Sure you are. But why do people put you there to do that? It is to enforce the rule of law in ways that will make society healthy.

15col-shepardfarewell.jpg Chief Justice Shepard’s service was celebrated in a retirement ceremony March 19. (Submitted photo)

After retirement, what role would you like to take up in the legal community? How do you plan to stay engaged?

It is still very much a work in progress. I think I can kind of do best as a utility player. Most likely not doing a single thing, but playing multiple roles in varying degrees of time commitment. (At his retirement ceremony, Chief Justice Shepard revealed his plans for retirement include serving as a senior judge with the Indiana Court of Appeals, a visiting scholar at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, a guest editor for Indiana University’s history journal, and as director of Justice at Stake.)


What will retirement give you time to do that you haven’t been able to do before?

I’d like to spend a little more time working on things that have to do with history. There are two or three kinds of history that interest me: one is Indiana history, another is family history. And I have quite the pile of books that I’d like to work my way through sooner or later.

As you might know, the governor has asked if I’d serve on the commission for the bicentennial of Indiana’s statehood. I enjoy both research and writing on history topics and being directly engaged in trying to make those come alive for people.

What challenges will be on the plate of the next chief justice?

So much of what we do is collaborative and ongoing ... I think the ability to finance the court system is going to be close to the top of the discussion over the next few years. One of the things that we’ve tried to make happen, and we are making progress, is increasing the extent to which the court system and related services are financed by the state system rather than on the backs of county taxpayers. The Legislature, over time, has been moving in the direction of more state finance. It feels like with abused and neglected children or delinquent children, or on the criminal side the range of available sanctions or the quality of public defender work, that we are leveling out differences that historically existed on one side of the county line as opposed to the other. That is why I say this is not a new story, but it is one that is hardly done yet, and needs to be advanced further over the next few years.

After 27 years on the Supreme Court, what stands out as a “best day” in the office?

The day when Judge Dan Donahue of the Clark Circuit Court and several other trial judges came to visit the Supreme Court. ... He was then chair of what is called the Domestic Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference, and they had just finished doing one of their periodic revisions to the child support guidelines. Those guidelines were a revolution in terms of how easy it became to work out child support and dissolution and paternity cases. Judge Donahue and his committee came to us and said they had the idea that something similar might be possible with what was then called visitation – one parent has custody, the other has visitation. They came to ask whether, if they spent the time and effort to create the guidelines that covered custody and visitation, would the Supreme Court be willing to entertain adopting those.

15col-shepard-law-school.jpg Randy Shepard studied law at Yale Law School in 1972. (Submitted photo)

Well, the court said, yes, we’d be willing to consider that, it seems like a plausible idea. Eventually, they came forward with a set of proposals that had a new name – parenting time guidelines. That story is exhilarating on multiple levels. One was the Supreme Court was open for business to people who had interesting ideas and that members of the domestic relations committee thought of us that way, thought they could get a serious hearing and that the interesting idea might get embraced was a great statement. And the substance of what they’ve done is to realign everybody’s thinking on what it is we are actually trying to accomplish by using the term “parenting time.” There were non-custodial dads who were rightly taking objection to use of the word “visitation.” What do you mean visitation with my own children? What Judge Donahue’s committee did was say, “Let’s think about what this is for.” What it is for is to create a framework, one family at a time, in which both adults parent the children they are trying to raise. It showed ingenuity by men and women who saw a possible improvement and brought it forward; and eventually the General Assembly took the word visitation out of the Code and adopted parenting time. I remember that day very vividly. (The chief justice recounted several “best days” in the office, but space prevented all from being shared.)

You have been very involved in historical preservation, the Supreme Court courtroom, for example. Why was that important to you?

I think that Indiana’s legal history is important for modern lawyers and judges because it can be a constant reminder that Indiana is a place where high quality of legal work has been done and can be done in the future. There is so much rich heritage that today’s legal profession enjoys, and that ought to be an inspiration to all of us to do our best to build on that. … So as society changes and law evolves, it seems to me it ought to be an inspiration to us, it certainly is to me, that there have been many, many monumental contributions by judges and lawyers in this state, and we who merely stand on their shoulders ought to aspire to add to that record. So the physical reminders are that – they are modest reminders that important things happened here that mattered in the lives of people.

Do you ever reflect on what your career would have been, if it had not been in the law?

When I was in high school there were three things I thought I might want to do. Law was always on the list. The other two were foreign service and journalism. Those other two interests are still with me. I pay a fair amount of attention to international affairs and travel oversees. My wife and I have visited about 30 countries, and we hope to visit some more. With respect to journalism, I pay a lot of attention to the dramatic changes going on in the news business, how the institutions and platforms are shifting, how the electronic age is affecting how people learn things. I read a lot about that. I am also able to make some use of that interest in the courts in what I’ve tried to accomplish with public access.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • thats ok
    I didnt like a lot of his rulings but judges need to get paid. That is totally important both for attracting talent, retaining it, and also preventign corruption. For this I credit his efforts. Judges should be well paid.
  • Shepard
    Before too many tears are shed over his departure, let's also remember Shepard started his career as a typical political hack. The issue he spent the most time & energy on was raising the salaries of judges. His was not a noble career.

    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. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

    2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

    3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

    4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

    5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

    ADVERTISEMENT