Cameras in court
Pilot project will introduce video transcripts in 3 courts
July 4, 2012
Dave StaffordThree Indiana courts are weeks away from beginning an unprecedented experiment: recording proceedings with digital video that
will form the official trial court record.
MoreCameras in SCOTUS bill referred to full Senate
February 10, 2012
IL StaffThe U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation Thursday that will allow cameras in the Supreme Court of the United
States. The measure, S.1945, was approved by an 11-7 vote.
MoreWebcasting allowed in 3 Lake County courtrooms
January 27, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court has announced a new 18-month pilot project allowing trial court proceedings to be webcast in three
Lake County courtrooms.
MoreIndiana courts take backseat on camera study
April 13, 2011
Michael HoskinsAs yet another study concerning cameras in the courtroom is about to begin, Indiana doesn’t appear to be anywhere closer
to allowing cameras in its state or federal trial-level courtrooms.
MoreFate of courtroom cameras still unknown
July 15, 2009
Michael HoskinsThe federal judge vying to become the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court favors having cameras in court and says she might
be interested in furthering their use at the nation's highest court that has resisted the idea for decades.
MoreSponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
Longest-practicing female attorney in Indiana has no plans to retire
-
Criminal code and expungement bills signed by governor
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
SCOTUS rules against Indiana farmer in seed patent case
-
Social media sleuths find evidence, but admissibility requires authentication
Court Calendar
-
May 22, 2013 Floyd Weddle v. State of Indiana - 5/22/13
-
May 24, 2013 Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, deceased - 5/24/13
-
May 28, 2013 The Estate of Richard A. Mayer and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., v. Lax, Inc., and David Lasco - 5/28/13
-
June 12, 2013 Northern Assurance Company of America v. Thomson, Inc., et al. - 6/12/13
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.