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. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT