ILNews

Judges persuade Commission on Courts to reject bail bond proposal and review use of psychologists

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Proposed legislation regarding bail bonds died Oct. 21 in the Indiana General Assembly’s Commission on Courts hearing after Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson raised concerns about constitutionality and legislative overreach.

“Once a suspect is arrested and placed in custody, it is the exclusive responsibility of the judiciary to evaluate and make all decisions regarding the basis for pre-trial release, if any,” Dickson, who is a member of the commission, told his colleagues. “While it may be the Legislature’s prerogative to regulate the business of insurance, including bail surety bonds, this legislative power cannot impinge upon the judiciary’s authority to implement the constitutional right to bail, including the setting of all terms and conditions of release from pre-trial detention.”

The commission heard extensive testimony in July from bail bond agents and Hendricks Superior Judge Robert Freese about the differences between and consequences of surety bonds and cash bonds. Bail bond agents alleged that courts are increasingly requiring cash bonds as a way to finance their judicial operations.

After Dickson made his remarks at Monday’s meeting, commission chair Sen. Brent Steele said he did not see anything in the proposed bill that would limit judicial discretion as the chief justice described. Judges could still set the bail at the amount they wanted, but the defendants would have the option of choosing the type of bail that best suits their resources, the Bedford Republican said.

Dickson responded that in his reading of the draft, the legislation would prohibit judges from releasing defendants based on their own recognizance. He pointed to Freese’s comments that discharging low-level offenders without bail has proven to be very effective in getting them to appear at their court dates.

Also, Dickson raised concerns that the legislation would prohibit any future movement by judges to use risk assessment tools when they make their pre-trial detention decisions. He said for individuals not charged with non-violent felonies, these tools have been shown to result in a high number of defendants returning to court, greater public safety and taxpayer savings.

Steele again said he did not see how the bill would restrict judges. He then asked for a motion on the proposed legislation. None of the commission members responded, causing the draft to die.

Allen Circuit Judge Tom Felts kept alive a proposal that would remove the current statutory requirement that judges appoint at least one psychiatrist to the team assessing the competence and mental health of a criminal defendant.

At the Sept. 24 meeting, members of the Indiana Psychological Association testified the law should be rewritten because the shortage of psychiatrists willing to assess criminal defendants is causing significant problems for the courts. However, certified forensic psychiatrist George Parker countered the medical training psychiatrists receive is invaluable in evaluating defendants’ physical aliments and use of medications.

Steele did not offer any proposed legislation regarding the use of psychologists and psychiatrists at Monday’s session, saying his interpretation of the commission’s response to the testimony was that the system is not broken and does not need to be fixed.

However, Felts echoed many judges when he noted courts can have an extremely difficult time finding psychiatrists. He said he would like to see a proposal go forward and Steele agreed to have a bill drafted.

The commission unanimously approved a proposal adding another magistrate to Vanderburgh County.

Also, the commission unanimously endorsed a bill that would tweak the language in the pendency of appeal statute. Henry Circuit Judge Mary Willis, representing the Indiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, told the commission the push for the change was ignited by the Indiana Supreme Court decision in In Re the Matter of Adoption of Minor Children: C.B.M. and C.R.M.: C.A.B. v. J.D.M. and K.L.M., 37S03-1303-AD-159.  

Willis described this case as the “perfect storm.” The adoption petition proceeded before the order for termination of parental rights had been finalized which, under the current wording of the state statute, is legal. However, when the Supreme Court vacated the adoption decree, the adoption was reversed and the minor children were removed from the only home they ever knew.

To prevent this from happening again, the Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee and the Indiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges recommended changing Indiana Code 31-19-11-6. The proposed wording makes clear that courts may not hear and grant a petition for adoption if the termination of parental rights is being appealed.

“That way, when kids get their final adoption decision, it is final,” Willis said after the hearing. “The horrible call is not made that there is a problem with that adoption. And the biological parents know they have every right to pursue their appeal until a final decision is made.”     
 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT