ILNews

IndyBar: Interrogatories

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Tyler D. Helmond, Voyles Zahn & Pauls

Honorable Mark A. Jones
Marion Circuit Court
 

jones Jones

He is a graduate of Indiana University Bloomington and the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He was a staff attorney at the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, a chief counsel at the Indiana Attorney General’s office, a chief trial counsel at the Marion County Public Defender Agency, and a private practitioner before taking the bench as a master commissioner in Marion Circuit Court. He is Mark Jones, and he has been served with interrogatories.

What are your most favorite and least favorite aspects of being a trial court judge?

Most favorite is getting to see some incredibly good advocacy by various members of our bar, especially when it is done in the context of—yes, I’ll use the word—“civility.” It’s fun and an honor to be a part of a case in which well-prepared lawyers can “go at it” without getting personal with one another, who can vehemently disagree with each other but at the same time respect the other’s well-thought-out and presented positions. A close second would be the law geek in me getting to drill down into some issue I’ve dealt with either none at all or very little in the past.

 My least favorite is, probably, the opposite of the first: hearing a case with a lawyer who hasn’t prepared the case or hasn’t kept up with changes in the law. I understand well that a lawyer is frequently “stuck” with the facts his or her client may have created, but it is very frustrating — and frankly sometimes embarrassing — when there’s an apparent lack of effort to familiarize oneself with one’s own facts or the law, or both (and I’m not talking about the situation where someone is arguing for their reasonable interpretation of the law or for a change in the law).

Your duties include presiding over civil driver’s license litigation and requests for name changes. There seems to be a high rate of pro se representation in those areas. What is most challenging about handling cases with pro se litigants?

 I don’t know if it’s the most challenging, but at least one of the biggest challenges is ensuring the pro se litigants’ rights and access to the courts and justice without becoming their advocate. The trial rules and policies of the courts require that litigants file and present their own pleadings, motions and proposed orders, which are sometimes counterbalanced by the system’s needs to move and dispose of cases in order to make room for the next cases for the next litigants to be heard. The pro se litigant’s case frequently takes more time, whether it’s necessary for me to later prepare the final orders or, during a hearing, taking the time to advise the litigant what’s necessary for the case to get to the next step in order for him or her to be heard, without giving him or her legal advice and without me inserting myself as an advocate for one side or the other.

 The NCAA made a commercial several years ago that included a robed judge playing basketball. Who would be your number one draft pick from the Marion Superior Court bench?

I have no idea. Maybe Judge Shaheed for his height, Judge Rosenberg for his ability to “box-out.”

 What has been the most satisfying moment of your legal career?

Throwing Jim Voyles off track while he was questioning a witness during a deposition by slowly opening a Hershey’s kiss across the table from him. Kidding aside, it’s hard to pinpoint one moment given the fact I’ve been blessed to practice for so long in so many different capacities. Knowing that I’ve given something my best shot, whether it’s as a litigator or a judicial officer and whether I win or lose (or get reversed), I generally feel good about it (I still really liked to win as a litigator …) .

 Hypothetically, you’re wrongfully convicted of a crime and you serve 10 years in prison. You are released in downtown Indianapolis at 5:30 p.m. Where are you going for dinner?

Depends upon how much money was in my commissary fund and whether I’d received a settlement yet… Grecian Garden versus St. Elmo’s.

 What is your favorite flavor of Sun King?

Osiris Pale Ale, though admittedly I’m not familiar with all that Sun King has to offer.

 Are you a Mac or are you a PC?

Mac at home, PC at work.

 What book is currently on your night stand?

“Humongous Zits, a Zits Treasury” by Jerry Scott and Jim Borgman (a must read by any parent of a teenager or teenagers, especially a son); “A Wanted Man” by Lee Child; and “Flat Belly Diet! For Men,” by Liz Vaccariello and D. Milton Stokes (obviously haven’t opened the last book recently).•

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT