ILNews

Indiana judiciary continues to lead by example

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though times are tough, the Indiana chief justice says the Hoosier judiciary remains strong and continues to be a leader that other states look to as an example.

Giving his 24th annual State of the Judiciary speech on Wednesday before a joint session of the Indiana General Assembly, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard praised the state court system’s efforts during the past year that have materialized despite the economic climate and lack of resources for everyone.

Talking about how people across the country and state discuss how broken government is and how public leaders aren’t listening to constituents, the chief justice talked about how the legal community has responded and proven they can rise above the economic crisis.

“In short, Indiana’s judiciary is one that keeps its feet planted firmly on this territory, on Hoosier soil, while keeping its eyes on the horizon,” Chief Justice Shepard said, highlighting four areas where he observed the state courts thriving during 2010.

- Mortgage foreclosures: With foreclosure filings higher last year than in 2009 and the courts burdened with those cases, the chief justice highlighted how homeowners have the opportunity now for a settlement conference and that more than 40 percent of homeowners respond when a court sends out a separate settlement notice. The conferences are used in counties that have 60 percent of the foreclosures and Chief Justice Shepard said they’ll be implemented statewide by the end of this year, in addition to the best practices document the State Court Administration has recently published to help judges outline case management plans.

- Smarter sentencing: As the state legislature discusses how to revise sentencing so that high-risk offenders receive appropriate sentences and are incarcerated, the chief justice talked about how local corrections officials have already been tackling that issue. He discussed how a risk assessment tool recently became mandatory for every criminal and delinquency court statewide, and that 2,300 probation officers and judges and court staff have been trained to use it.

- Technology: Praising the continued implementation of the statewide Case Management System called Odyssey, the chief justice said the system is being used in 77 courts in 26 counties and at least 175 are on a waiting list to participate. The participation reflects use in a third of the state’s courts since the project began in late 2007, and he urged lawmakers to temporarily increase from $7 to $10 the automated record-keeping fee to help speed up the process. The chief justice also praised other technology avenues that have been put into place during the past year, including electronic notification systems tracking police citations, protective orders in domestic violence cases, and when someone is adjudicated mentally ill so those individuals can be kept from obtaining firearms.

- Jury instructions: The state unveiled new instructions last fall, taking much of the legalese out of courtroom instructions and replacing it with examples and language that non-attorneys can easily understand.

“The men and women of the Indiana courts tackle all these issues and more, both through long-range strategic planning and through immediate action,” Chief Justice Shepard said. “So, it’s with the men and women of Indiana’s courts, who’ve proven themselves able at diagnosing a defect or identifying an opportunity, recruiting talented people, and capable of seizing the moment on the basis of the best ideas available.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Stepping Out of Bounds
    â??Why would you overcharge the taxpayers of Indiana hundreds of millions of dollars just to make government bigger and less efficient?â?? â??Theyâ??ve forgotten itâ??s the taxpayer who pays for government.â?? Governor Mitch Daniels

    The Indiana Supreme Court could serve Hoosier taxpayers better if they would heed Governor Daniels wisdom especially in these economic times. While I appreciate and share the Indiana Supreme Courtâ??s attempts to link courts statewide and bring some uniformity to the courts, this has already been done by the commercial marketplace. So spending one-tenth of a BILLION of Hoosier taxpayersâ?? dollars for Odyssey and other software applications that replicate what already exists in the commercial marketplace at one-tenth the cost makes no economic sense. And once again, the Chief Justice announces to all that he wants Hoosier to pay 50% more for these redundant systems. Not only does the Supreme Court replicate software that already exists in the marketplace, they are also crossing what is the constitutional boundary of the County Clerk, law enforcement, prosecutor, probation and public defender. The Indiana Supreme Court is in the business of writing traffic citations (that are up nearly 50% since 2004), filing traffic tickets with the Clerk and they are doing the Clerk record keeping over the risky and costly internet. The e-CWS (electronic citation), Protective Order Registry and Mental Health Adjudication systems are wonderful systems but they should be the responsibility of the prosecutor and law enforcement. Hopefully it is time to stop government competing against the private sector and respect Constitutional boundaries. If so, the taxpaying marketplace will be able to create more Hoosier taxpaying jobs and Indiana will once again be open to free market competition that will save Hoosier taxpayers tens of millions of dollars every year.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT