ILNews

IMPD lawyer to be deposed in councilor’s wrongful arrest case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers for Indianapolis City-County Councilman Joseph Simpson may depose a city attorney about legal advice she gave in another case regarding a state statute at the heart of Simpson’s wrongful arrest case, a federal judge ruled Friday

Magistrate Judge Tim Baker of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the city’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking to depose Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department attorney Melissa Kramer on her interpretation of a criminal statute under which Simpson was charged.

“Ordinarily, such advice would be shielded on grounds of privilege. However, Office of Corporation Counsel, which represents Defendants, has put Defendants in a bind,” Baker wrote in Joseph Simpson v. City of Indianapolis and Andrew McKalips, 1:13-cv-791.

Because a transcribed copy of Kramer’s legal opinion was inadvertently produced to attorneys in prior litigation and the city never asked for its return and allowed a witness to be questioned about it in another case, “the unmistakable conclusion is that Defendants have waived any privilege associated with Kramer’s opinion,” Baker wrote.

“The Court rejects Defendants’ suggestion that Kramer’s deposition would be superfluous. Kramer must be produced for a deposition, and Defendants must produce documents as outlined,” Baker ruled.

Simpson was arrested by Officer Andrew McKalips about two years ago after the councilman allegedly refused to leave a neighbor’s house where the officer was investigating a possible burglary. Simpson was charged with refusing to leave the scene of an emergency incident area under the Interference with a Firefighter chapter of I.C. 35-44-1-4-5, and resisting law enforcement, according to the order. The charges later were dismissed.

Simpson sued the city  in May 2013, claiming false arrest and malicious prosecution. The suit alleges Simpson suffered “physical discomfort, loss of liberty, embarrassment and humiliation, emotional distress, and damage to his good name and reputation,” and it seeks damages as well as attorney fees and costs.

At issue is Kramer’s interpretation of whether the interference with a firefighter statute pertained to police emergency scenes. Kramer had provided an opinion in a prior case that also involved Simpson’s lawyer, Indianapolis civil-rights attorney Richard Waples.    

Simpson, a Democrat, represents District 9.




 

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. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT