ILNews

IBA: Interrogatories

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marcia J. Oddi

Editor, Indiana Law Blog

www.indianalawblog.com

She is a graduate of Indiana University and the Indiana University McKinney School of Law. She served as Revisor of Statutes, Director of the Public Law Division of the Indiana Legislative Services Agency, and Chief Counsel to the Indiana Senate before entering private practice in 1988. She is Marcia Oddi, the preeminent Indiana law blogger, and she has been served with interrogatories.

Q: The Indiana Law Blog (ILB) just celebrated its 10th anniversary last month. How did you decide to start the blog?

A: I’ve had a lifelong fascination with news information and its distribution. (1) My parents were inveterate newspaper clippers, regularly sending me thick envelopes of stories when I was in college. (2) Clifton Utley (Garrick’s father) was an NBC news anchor back in the day when I was working in Chicago. I’d see him on the South Shore, getting ready for his show, clipping stories out of the papers - I was in awe. (3) When I started working for the General Assembly in the mid-1960s, the legislature subscribed to clipping services and I loved reading news from all around the state. So naturally when Howard Bashman started How Appealing (www.howappealing.law.com) I thought, wow, I could do that clipping thing for Indiana!

Q: What is an average day like in the life of the blog? How do you decide what to cover, and how much time does it take?

A: I spend an average of six hours a day on the ILB. Before I get out of bed I’m watching Morning Joe and scrolling through my iPad for news and emails. I file stories away to use throughout the day. I look through a number of online papers. I use Google Reader constantly. I try to start posting between 8 and 9 a.m., but it may be earlier if something big has occurred, or later if I’m working on a long, difficult entry, or have something else on my schedule.

Mid-morning I start looking for court opinions. I check Twitter and my email every few minutes for new news. By mid-afternoon things usually slow down and I can work on more involved posts. Throughout the day I address emails from readers.

A small fraction of what I read ends up on the blog. After all this time I have some sort of internal governor that tells me, “that fits in the blog” or “that doesn’t”.

Q: Frequent readers of the ILB know about your commitment to transparency and access to records. Are you optimistic about the future of transparency in Indiana law?

A: Not really. Look at this past session. A bill to charge fees for public records fortunately didn’t make it this year, but another bill, SEA 369, which allows a public agency to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of investigatory records of law enforcement agencies or criminal intelligence information, is awaiting the Governor’s action. As The Times of Northwest Indiana wrote, “Refusing to acknowledge a record’s existence is even worse than refusing to release it, with or without redaction.”

Q: Assuming a reader follows ILB and has time to follow one other legal blog, which would you recommend and why?

A: SCOTUSblog (www.scotusblog.com), hands down. It has cleared the table, insofar as U.S. Supreme Court coverage is concerned, and it gets better every year. Founder Tom Goldstein has been quoted, “The court is so bad at conveying information about what it’s doing, if someone can helpfully step in in a way that’s free and accessible, people really appreciate it.” Of course, SCOTUSblog has had wonderful monetary support, first from a major law firm and now from Bloomberg.

Q: Google Reader is shutting down next month. Do you have recommendations on how to follow the ILB in the future for current users of that service?

A: Yes, follow the ILB on Twitter @indianalawblog. I send out a tweet after every new blog post, and also do some retweets of others’ items.

The bigger question is, how will the ILB keep up-to-date with the news without Google Reader? Don’t know yet, but I plan to start looking on June 1st—the announced shutdown is July 1st.

Q: What do you think has made ILB so popular?

A: Well, thanks! I try to put together “what an Indiana lawyer may want to know today,” plus some mindstretchers and an occasion chuckle.

According to my Sitemeter stats (which only counts clicks made directly to the blog itself), the ILB averages 2,000 to 2,400 visitors each weekday and about twice that number of page views.

Q: Do you have any goals left for ILB? Where do you see it going?

A: I’d like to see more transparency in the judiciary. We are getting there. When the ILB started 10 years ago, transfer lists were not online and neither were Not for Publication decisions of the Court of Appeals. There was little information available for voters when judges and justices went up for retention. The selection process for appellate judges and justices received minimal coverage. All that has improved. And of course the appellate courts videocast and archive most of their opinions; that is awesome.

As for goals which would allow the ILB to provide enhanced coverage:

I’d like the Supreme Court briefs to be posted online as they are filed. Generally these consist of transfer petitions and responses, sometimes amicus briefs, and in rare cases (Malenchik and Quanardel Wells come to mind) the Supreme Court will ask for more briefing.

I’d like the Court to announce what petitions it will consider in its upcoming weekly or more frequent conference (as does the Supreme Court of the United States), and then promptly post the resultant transfer list that afternoon or the following morning.

Finally, an essential and pressing goal for the ILB is finding more major financial supporters.

Q: Professor Joel Schumm is one of the only people other than you who makes contributions to the blog. How did that come about?

A: When Justice Boehm announced his retirement and Chief Justice Shepard announced that the interviews for a new justice, the first in more than 10 years, not only would be open, but the applications would be posted online, I contacted Prof. Schumm to see how we might work together to report on the selection process. I knew Joel then only through the notes we traded back and forth about ILB items. Joel had great ideas and put much time and effort into the coverage and the rest is history. His contributions via the ILB to the Indiana legal community have been, I believe, unmatchable.

Q: If you had to do something other than blog and practice law, what would it be?

A: I began life after college as a biological illustrator at the Field Museum; I would love to spend more time drawing and painting.•

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT