ILNews

IndyBar: Interrogatories - 3/12/14

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

crone-terry.jpg Crone

By Tyler D. Helmond, Voyles Zahn & Paul
Hon. Terry A. Crone

Indiana Court of Appeals

He is a graduate of DePauw University and the University of Notre Dame Law School. He practiced law for nine years before taking the bench in St. Joseph County – first as magistrate and later as judge of the St. Joseph Circuit Court. He was appointed to the Indiana Court of Appeals in 2004. He is the Honorable Terry A. Crone, and he has been served with interrogatories.

Q: Are you or are any of your colleagues reading briefs on iPads?

A: Yes, it allows us to stay current while traveling or working from home.



Q: When you are first assigned a new case, in what order do you read the briefs?

A: I read the Appellant’s brief followed by the Appellee’s brief and then the reply brief.



Q: Who is the best golfer on the Indiana appellate bench?

A: Steve David. Sort of like being All-State from Rhode Island.



Q: What golf course have you not played that is first on your golfing bucket list?

A: Augusta National.



Q: You’re a DePauw graduate. Do you miss the days of winning the Monon Bell?

A: Almost as much as you IU grads miss the Rose Bowl.

Q: What is your favorite part about traveling oral arguments?

A: The opportunity to educate people about how our legal system really works. It is very distressing to see how little most people know about our system of justice.



Q: You spent many years as a trial court judge. What do you see these days that drives you crazy about the way trial court proceedings are conducted?

A: I have tremendous respect for the work done by our trial judges. I am particularly impressed with how they are using modern technology to improve the delivery of judicial services to the public.



Q: If you could choose one book as required reading for an appellate judge, what would it be?

A: “Devil in the Grove” by Gilbert King. I think it is important to remember the abuses that were occurring not so long ago when we consider why we have some of the procedural safeguards we do and how they ought to be adapted to an ever changing society.•

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT