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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT