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.”•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.