ILNews

IU McKinney professor recognized for work in courtrooms and classrooms

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Harold Tice was trying to get his conviction overturned on the grounds that his attorney was not properly prepared for his trial. But as the Dearborn County resident began pleading his case pro se before the Indiana Court of Appeals in September 2011, he fumbled and ended his attempt with “I can’t, I just, I’m just not, just not prepared today.”

Reading the court record later, Indianapolis attorney Joel Schumm found a key issue as to why Tice was not ready to present his argument – the time he had to prepare was too short. Less than three weeks after Tice filed his petition for post-conviction relief, the post-conviction court scheduled the hearing.

IL_Schumm04-15col.jpg Joel Schumm, clinical professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, is the 2013 recipient of the W. George Pinnell faculty award.(IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The court’s denial of Tice’s motion to stay, Schumm reasoned, conflicted with an earlier ruling where the court stated continuances and withdrawals should be liberally granted.

The Tice case soon joined the list of pro bono efforts Schumm has undertaken. Sitting down at his laptop and tapping out a petition to transfer, he composed an opening statement that is a mix of fact and poetry: “Although we generally applaud speedy justice, sometimes the wheels of justice move so quickly that they can crush a litigant.”

Recalling the case recently, Schumm emphasized he was one shy. The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer by a 2-3 vote. Just one vote, he whispered.

Having convictions reversed on appeal or getting transfers to the Supreme Court are not typical events in Schumm’s day. Yet, whatever heartbreak, frustration or disappointment the court decisions may bring, he continues to file appeals and petitions for transfer.

Schumm knows 85 percent of all convictions are affirmed on appeal and never forgets his mother telling him that life is not fair. Still he wants to make it a little fairer. “You can’t fix everything, but fixing some things is better than not doing anything.”

Affable and easy-going, Schumm carries his commitment to fairness into the classroom. He is a clinical professor of law and director of the judicial externship program at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. In 2008 he created the Appellate Clinic at the school, and each semester he and a handful of second- and third-year students try to convince the courts to right what they see as a wrong.

His work in courts as well as in the law school has earned him one of the highest honors Indiana University can bestow on a faculty member. Schumm is the 2013 recipient of the W. George Pinnell Award. Given to one faculty member from among the 4,000 who work at I.U.’s eight campuses, the award recognizes outstanding service to the university.

“It’s humbling, it’s an honor,” Schumm said. “To me, it’s a reflection of what I do and the remarkable people I have been able to work with on a variety of different projects.”

In a letter supporting Schumm’s nomination, attorney Jonathan Bont highlighted his former professor’s ability to bring out the best in his students through measured critique, advice and encouragement.

“I met Joel as a first year law student who did not know a tort from a crime,” Bont wrote. “From day one he was always willing to meet with me outside of class to provide advice and reassurance. Over the next three years, he helped me achieve every goal that I set for myself.”

schummNorman Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, pointed in his letter to Schumm’s service to the public. He praised Schumm as a “uniquely dependable, motivated and highly effective leader” whose ability to distill complex ideas and forge consensus is invaluable when addressing complex systemic problems.

Night school

Growing up in Ohio, Schumm knew at an early age he wanted to be a lawyer. His practical side drove him to study accounting as an undergraduate so he could be sure of finding employment once he got his degree.

He came to Indianapolis for an accounting job and has called the Circle City home ever since.

Shortly before he began night classes at I.U. McKinney School of Law, he took a job time stamping filings in the Marion County clerk’s office. A few months later, he was hired as a bailiff by then Marion Superior Judge Gary Miller. Miller’s court was for major felonies and held about 20 jury trials annually.

Being in the courtroom was, Schumm said, a fascinating way to learn the law. More eye-opening were the conversations Miller would have with the jurors after the trial ended. As they talked about the attorneys and the process, Schumm learned how lay people view the legal system.

At the start of a new semester’s Appellate Clinic, Schumm invokes the lay-person’s impression by telling his students not to start with research. He wants them to read through the record and ask what seems wrong. Knowing the precedent cases and court decision can lead to the students talking themselves out of taking the case. Schumm admits his knowledge of rulings sometimes prevents him from answering the simple questions of what is wrong.

In December, Schumm and one of his clinic students joined Ruth Johnson from the Marion County Public Defender Agency and successfully got an operating while suspended conviction reversed in Israel Cruz v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1204-CR-301. The court agreed that since the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles mailed the suspension notice to the wrong address, there was not sufficient evidence that Israel Cruz knew he was suspended.

“Before someone is convicted of a crime, the state should work to do everything right,” Schumm said, discussing the case afterward. “Some people think that’s a technicality. To me, that’s following the law, following the Constitution.”

In his first case before the Indiana Supreme Court, Schumm returned to the theme of fairness. He argued that courts are required to give supporting reasons when imposing a sentence in a felony case to ensure both fairness and meaningful appellate review. The Supreme Court agreed, and Anglemyer v. State of Indiana, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007), has been cited by courts more than 1,800 times.

A card from prison

In 2012 the law professor found himself in the spotlight, sometimes for controversial reasons.

Schumm was a semi-finalist for a vacancy on the Indiana Court of Appeals. The position was appealing because it combined two activities he loves: writing and mentoring young attorneys.

However, his writing raised a few eyebrows in the legal community shortly before the November election. Schumm penned an op-ed piece, which appeared in The Indianapolis Star, advocating the retention of all six judges appearing on the ballot. The bulk of the piece was focused on Justice Steven David who was the subject of public ire because of his Barnes decision.

One attorney described the piece as “pandering” while other attorneys questioned whether lawyers who practice before these judges should make such public statements.

Schumm explained the Indiana State Bar Association approached him and he offered to help in any way he could. He ended up writing the editorial to impress upon voters that a justice should not be labeled by one ruling.

Among the writing he most treasures is a card he received from a client in prison. Schumm had lost the case, but the man wrote that Schumm cared more about his case than anyone in his family.

“I think that’s an important part of doing this kind of work,” Schumm said. “It’s not just making the law better for everyone else but at least giving that person the sense that you’re fighting for them, that something has been done wrong to them, that they have rights and that you’re standing up for those rights.”•
 

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