ILNews

Judges disagree on remand instructions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals judges unanimously agreed today that a defendant's petition for expungement of his arrest shouldn't have been denied by the trial court, but they disagreed as to what should happen on remand.

The trial court summarily denied Steven T. Gerber's petition for expungement of his arrest, but the trial court could only do this per statute if there was notice of opposition filed by the prosecutor or if it found Gerber's petition to be insufficient. The trial judge in his case rejected the petition without a hearing because the judge believed Gerber had to wait until the statute of limitations to file charges ran out before his arrest could be expunged. The prosecutor didn't file a notice of opposition nor did the judge find the petition to be insufficient.

In Steven T. Gerber v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-0902-CR-73, Judges Melissa May and Michael Barnes and Chief Judge John Baker agreed that the statute of limitations for an offense is not the appropriate guideline to determine whether a petition for expungement may be granted. The court noted there is no statute of limitations on a person arrested for any Class A felony, so someone falsely arrested may never have that arrest expunged.

Even though meaning of the term "insufficient" in the expungement statute remains unclear, Judge May remanded with instructions to either summarily grant Gerber's petition, set the matter for a hearing, or summarily deny the petition after finding it to be insufficient.

Judge May also concluded the prosecutor shouldn't be permitted to participate on remand. Even though the prosecutor failed to file a notice of opposition, the trial judge later allowed the prosecutor to file a brief opposing Gerber's petition.

Judge Barnes dissented from his colleagues with regards to the prosecutor's participation on remand. He wrote participation may take place in many shapes and forms and a blanket prohibition on participation by the prosecutor could unfairly, and perhaps unknowingly, inhibit conduct that would otherwise be helpful and proper.

In his dissent, Chief Judge Baker wrote the trial court shouldn't have the option to summarily deny Gerber's petition on remand because the trial judge didn't find his petition to be insufficient and no law enforcement agency filed a notice of opposition to the expungement.

"I see no reason to give the trial court a second chance to review Gerber's petition and change its decision; nothing in the underlying facts or law has changed since the trial court's initial order was entered," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT