ILNews

Hands-on training for teachers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Bar Foundation have partnered to offer teachers a way to learn more about the state’s judicial system. Now in its fourth year, the 10-day program, “From the Inside Out: How Indiana’s Courts Work,” allows teachers to visit trial and appellate courts and talk with judges and attorneys about the inner workings of Indiana courts.
 

training2-15col.jpg During the mock oral argument, workshop participants argued their side of the case in front of three “judges,” while being timed and questioned, as is standard in real oral arguments. (Photos submitted)

Andy Ohmer, an 8th grade U.S. history teacher at Lincoln Middle School in Indianapolis, participated in the program two summers ago. He said that through the workshop, he learned about the Indiana Judges Speakers Bureau and subsequently invited Marion County Superior Court Judges Robert Altice and Jose Salinas to speak to a few of his classes.

Peggy Lehman, also an 8th grade history teacher, said she attended the workshop because she wanted to learn more about Indiana history and government. She said that she was able to integrate into the classroom information she learned about courts and civil rights.

“It was also fun to shock students when I told them I went to the women’s prison,” she said.


training-15col.jpg Two teachers work with a law clerk in the Supreme Court Conference Room to prepare for their mock oral argument.

Lehman said she appreciated learning more about the people who make some of Indiana’s most important decisions. “This program allowed me to see that the judges and courts are made up of real people, just trying to do the best they can for our state.”

The program, which runs June 13 through 24, accepts 20 teachers each summer and offers a $50 stipend to participants. For more information, contact Elizabeth Osborn at eosborn@courts.state.in.gov, or at 317-233-8682.•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT