ILNews

Judicial appointments a hot topic at 7th Circuit conference

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Anytime there’s a judicial conference, you can expect judges to trade in their black robes and court dockets and attorneys to similarly trade in their legal pads and client meetings to confer with colleagues about the legal issues of the day.

But the 59th joint meeting of the 7th Circuit Bar Association and Judicial Conference for the 7th Circuit May 2-4 brought more than just the usual review of the past year’s business and outlook for the coming year. More than 600 jurists and attorneys converged on downtown Chicago, a year after coming to Indianapolis.

This year’s conference featured a more historic tone because of the high-profile roster of legal community leaders who attended, as well as offering tidbits about how the Indianapolis federal courthouse will soon be going green, how the state’s Southern District is hoping for a new full-time magistrate, and a call to action for Hoosier judges and attorneys to get more involved in a new e-discovery program under way.

Justice Stevens

A highlight of the annual event is the first night’s dinner reception, which Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States usually attends. Though he unexpectedly canceled an appearance last year in Indianapolis, he returned for the event in his hometown of Chicago; he’s attended more than 50 such events through the years. This year’s was more historic, though, as the man who’s only the second sitting justice to ever hit the age of 90 announced last month he’s retiring this summer after 35 years on the high court.

The bow-tie wearing justice didn’t address his legal career, the court’s ideology, or the expected confirmation battle over his successor even though three of the potential nominees at the time were in the same room listening to his comments: keynote speaker and past Harvard Law School dean U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood, and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Ann C. Williams.

Judge Wood had moderated a panel discussion panel earlier that day about a controversial 2009 ruling in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), which involved pleadings standards and the Constitution. Her panel didn’t address nominations or Justice Stevens, but she was later able to walk into the dinner reception arm-in-arm with Justice Stevens. He mentioned her by first name in his address, before introducing Kagan and saying he “pulled rank on her” in not wanting to be the main speaker of the evening.

During her speech, Kagan talked about her times arguing before the high court and praised Justice Stevens as a truth seeker who always continued learning. She said the country was “fortunate beyond all measure” for his service on the court.

Kagan, as it turns out, was nominated May 10 by President Barack Obama to succeed Justice Stevens.

Justice Stevens kept a sense of humor and offered two modest historical anecdotes during his dinner speech, and audience members said that was a charming valedictory and even more in character for the man who didn’t want all the attention.

Justice Stevens entertained the sold-out dinner crowd with memories of attending the 1932 World Series game between the Cubs and New York Yankees, and seeing Babe Ruth point to the center-field spot where he planned and eventually hit a home run. That love for his hometown team came back at the end of his speech, when Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook presented the retiring justice with a Cubs jacket.

Justice Stevens also wanted to correct what he said was a misconception that retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ended the practice of referring to Supreme Court justices as “Mister Justice.” A few years before she came to the high court, a woman judge complained to Justice Stevens that she didn’t like a woman being called “Madame Justice,” so the court dropped the titles “Mister” and “Madame” and recommended just calling all justices “Justice.”

“A lot of people assumed that she was responsible for the change,” he said about former Justice O’Connor. “I thought I would straighten out the record on that.”

While Justice Stevens sidestepped successor talk, the Senate nomination and confirmation process came up repeatedly during the business sessions and side talks during the conference.

Vacancies plague courts

Chief Judge Easterbrook said the biggest challenge facing the Circuit in 2010 is the vacancy rate on the District courts and the U.S. Senate’s slow confirmation process. A quarter of the Circuit’s District bench spots are vacant after 16 months of President Barack Obama’s term, he said. In all, 10 vacancies currently exist: three on Indiana’s benches – and two more judges circuit-wide are leaving this summer. That will put more of a burden on the courts to keep up the speed and efficiency that’s a hallmark of the 7th Circuit, the chief judge said.

“Nominations have been slow, and confirmations even slower,” Chief Judge Easterbrook said during his annual State of the Circuit address. “The courts of this circuit benefited from bipartisan cooperation for several decades. … That cooperation needs to be restored.”

At a later District Court breakout session, Chief Judge Richard Young in the Southern District of Indiana said his district has two Article III nominations pending – Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt – and they are awaiting a full vote by the Senate. In the meantime, the current judges are keeping up the workload and utilizing best practices and magistrate assistance.

“The Senate doesn’t have a concern about litigants, and we know they don’t think much about judges from what we’ve seen,” he said.

Until more judicial resources are offered, the Circuit continues pushing to be a leader nationally in speed and efficiency in how it handles cases, the judges said.

2009 review, looking ahead

Overall, the 7th Circuit has seen a decline in case filings in the past decade, and 2009 brought in nearly 5 percent fewer appeals last year than the year before, Chief Judge Easterbrook said. Yet the Circuit remained one of the busiest and has one of the highest levels of oral arguments and published opinions nationally, he said. Filings increased at the District level by about 7 percent on average and cases lasted about 7 months on average. He also noted bankruptcy courts have begun rebounding from the drastic law changes in 2005.

The Southern District had 330 appeals filed last year, which was the lowest number in at least five years, Clerk Gino Agnello said. The Northern District of Indiana saw 246 appeals or proceedings initiated last year, down from the 283 the year before and about equal with the figures in 2007.

A full report of the past year’s activity is available on the 7th Circuit’s website at www.ca7.uscourts.gov.

Chief Judge Young, who took the leadership role after Judge David F. Hamilton was elevated to the 7th Circuit last year, is taking the oldest cause numbers first and reassigning the rest as needed. He said it makes sense for attorneys to consider consent for magistrates to hear cases in order to allow efficiency, and the chief judge also said the Southern District is asking for a new full-time magistrate position. He expects to hear in June whether Indiana will receive one of the six magistrate spots allowed in the federal budget.

Aside from managing the Southern District caseloads, judges will also be navigating a renovation process that’s starting at the historic federal courthouse. The courthouse was awarded $56.6 million last year for renovations through stimulus money, and the renovations are expected to last through 2013, according to Chief Judge Young. Part of that means judges and magistrates will need to adjust their assignments and possibly move courtrooms, and Judge William T. Lawrence will be the first judge impacted. But all attorneys will get notice of any changes, he said. Part of the project also includes creating a green roof for the Indianapolis courthouse, which means plants and trees will help keep the building cool and reduce heating and air conditioning costs, Chief Judge Young said.

The judges from all parts of the Circuit used their breakout sessions and larger seminars to address a key topic for the year, which came out after discussion during the 2009 meeting: e-discovery. The first phase of a pilot program began last year and ran through May 1, though leaders say the participation has been largely Illinois and Chicago-focused. Now, the Circuit wants more Indiana and Wisconsin judges and attorneys to get involved.•

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. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT