Justice touts Odyssey, counties seek addition judicial officers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Commission on Courts meeting Wednesday contained some familiar elements: Indiana Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan testified regarding Odyssey and two trial judges have once again asked for an additional judicial officer.

Justice Sullivan kicked off the meeting, giving commission members an update on the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee project, Odyssey, a case management system being implemented in counties. The justice touted the benefits of counties utilizing the voluntary CMS, and showed videos to enhance his message.

A commission member asked a question regarding data mining the information maintained by Odyssey, to which Justice Sullivan replied the information could be helpful to legislators to do their work, and that there are limitless opportunities for analysis of the data. He cited funding recently given to the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute by the federal government to study the issue of racial profiling of traffic stops.

Justice Sullivan also explained how this year’s cut by the General Assembly to the automated record keeping fee, which funds Odyssey, will impact implementation of the system. The fee decreased from $7 to $5 on July 1. He said they’ve had to reduce staff size somewhat and are in the process of re-writing consulting contracts. The fee reduction will also slow down the rate at which Odyssey can be installed.

Allen Circuit Judge Thomas Felts, who is also a member of the Commission on Courts, testified on behalf of his county asking to replace an Allen Circuit Court hearing officer with a magistrate position. He said this is the third or fourth time he has come with the request. One of the reasons he cited for wanting to make John Kitch a magistrate is that he wants to be able to keep him as an employee.

Owen Circuit Judge Frank Nardi also came with request that he has made before the commission in the past – he seeks a new judge. Currently, Circuit Court consists of him and a part-time referee. He said he would like separate independent courts: that could be done with the creation of a Superior Court or another Circuit Court, or the referee could be made into a magistrate.

Hendricks Superior Judges Robert Freese and Stephenie LeMay-Luken requested the addition of up to two magistrates. Judge Freese cited the population growth in Hendricks County and how the county has one judge per 24,000 people. The state averages about 16,000 people per judge. Ideally, they’d like the new magistrate or magistrates to begin July 1, 2012 or Jan. 1, 2013.

The judges presented a letter signed by the five Superior Court judges supporting the request. Judge Freese noted that Circuit Judge Jeffrey Boles doesn’t believe there is a need for new magistrates.

Also at the meeting, Judge Nardi announced that he would not be running for re-election. He has been on the bench since 1983.

The commission set its next meeting for Sept. 15, which chairperson Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, noted would likely be their last meeting.


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. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues