Judge sues to prevent local court closure

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If one east-central Indiana prosecutor had a time machine, he might travel back to the start of the year and reconsider whether it truly matters if the judge on the Knightstown Court is not an attorney.

He might not have transferred all misdemeanor cases from the town court because of concern about non-attorneys handling those types of criminal matters. That, in turn, might have prevented a drop in revenue that caused local officials to pursue the court’s closure by Oct. 31.

But all of that happened, and now Town Judge Bart Whitesitt – a non-attorney who’s been on the bench since February – has filed a lawsuit against Knightstown in an attempt to keep the court open, at least temporarily. Henry County Prosecutor Kit Crane is also trying to save the court while adapting to the changing criminal justice landscape.

“Our court has worked for decades,” he said. “But I get it. It’s the 21st century and we are moving on to make sure we have the most qualified people on the bench. I was pretty stubborn about that being the way to go – having lay judges. But it’s hard for me as a prosecutor to argue against the benefit to litigants in having someone trained and educated in that formal discipline able to hear their case.”

consolidation-15col.jpg Knightstown Court Judge Bart Whitesitt and his attorney Tony Saunders have filed a lawsuit challenging the closure of the local court by Oct. 31. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

This is an example where Indiana’s most local of courts are experiencing the trickle-down effect of state judiciary efforts to consolidate courts, unify jurisdictions, and require all individuals serving on the bench to have a law license. Some localities have passed ordinances and considered rules requiring law licenses for its city and town judges, and the issue centers on whether non-attorneys are knowledgeable in legal issues that apply even in traffic, infraction, and low-level criminal cases.

Statewide discussion at the start of the year didn’t specifically impact Knightstown Court, which has existed since the 1950s and about a decade ago was one of the highest-grossing courts in the state. But Crane knew the court reform issues were surfacing more frequently throughout Indiana and he expected it would present itself locally at some point.

That happened in January, when longtime Knightstown attorney and Town Judge Hayden Butler announced he was resigning from the court. The Indiana Supreme Court appointed attorney Joseph Lansinger to fill that spot temporarily.

Although the town council soon after passed an ordinance requiring the judge be a Knightstown resident and that any appointee be an attorney, the Henry County Republican Party chair wasn’t obligated to follow that ordinance and appointed Whitesitt, a precinct committeeman, in a caucus.

The county prosecutor saw a potential problem if Judge Whitesitt’s jurisdiction and ability to handle criminal cases ever came under scrutiny because of his lack of a law license. Crane took action, seeing a way to save the local court.

The solution: stop filing misdemeanors in town court, and instead only file civil infractions there. The rest would go to Henry Circuit Court.

“It would be better to have a court in Knightstown that could hear infractions than to have a court that couldn’t hear anything,” Crane said.

But without the misdemeanor cases, the court began to see less revenue as the year went on. The county clerk reported the court’s annual revenue had decreased by about $80,000 from 2009 to 2011 to half of what it had been. The court hours were cut by half in April, with Thursday from 6 to 10 p.m. being the only set time for court. Then, in the summer, local officials voted to close the court at year’s end. The closure timetable was later moved to the end of October. The ordinance that implemented the closure stated it wasn’t in the town’s best interest to supplement the court’s operations with property tax revenue.

If and when the town court closes, thousands of infraction filings, mostly speeding tickets, will follow the misdemeanors that have been transferred to Henry Circuit Judge Bob Witham’s courtroom.

Crane doesn’t want to see the town court’s closure, because of the impact it will have on the county judges who will have less time to devote to felony and other cases before them. It will also impact residents who will have to travel to county court rather than the local courthouse.

Judge Whitesitt filed his suit Sept. 6 to prevent that closure from happening, and New Castle attorney Tony Saunders is representing him.

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the court’s abolishment on the grounds that Indiana Code 33-35-1-1(a) only allows a town court to be abolished in 2006 and every fourth year – meaning the next possible closure year would be 2014. But Knightstown’s attorney Gregg Morelock reads another provision in that state law to give the council the right to close the court whenever it wants to take that action. He points to I.C. 33-25-1-1(d) that states, “A city or town court in existence on Jan. 1, 1986, may continue in operation until it is abolished by ordinance.”

What happens in Knights-town could influence other local decisions statewide as officials consider court consolidation in the future. Judge Whitesitt hopes for a compromise that would allow the court to stay open for a year to see whether it can be profitable. As of now, he is running unopposed in the Nov. 8 general election for the Knightstown Town Court – which may be a moot point if the court ceases to exist Oct. 31.

No matter the fate of the Knightstown Court, the debate continues about whether all city and town judges should be lawyers.

The state’s Judicial Conference contends local judges are on the front lines and litigants must have the best possible legal representation from everyone at that level. But the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns, as well as many lawyers and lay persons who serve as judges, disagree and say this falls under the home rule umbrella and it’s not right to force an area with few attorneys to have to pick one of those to be a judge.

At the end of last year, 37 of the 75 city and town court judges statewide were non-attorneys. Nineteen of the jurisdictions required by law or ordinance that judges have a law license.

Although the Indiana General Assembly considered a bill that would have required those judges to be attorneys, lawmakers failed to pass legislation this past year that would’ve required the change.

Even if the Knightstown Court stays open, Crane predicts that the necessity of town courts will eventually be debated in light of state judiciary actions. He might have done things differently earlier this year, but he knows it probably wouldn’t change the eventual fate of the local court.

“I believed the likelihood of scrutiny on our town court would be eliminated or reduced,” he said about his decision. “But I did not anticipate the increased financial burden to the town or the town council’s decision to abolish the court. Still, I suspect that it’s correct to say that regardless of local events, we would still be where we are now – eventually. We have a military phrase that you have to adjust fire … and that’s what we’re doing. Adjusting to the way things are.”•


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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?