ILNews

Recent changes impact state justice system

Michael W. Hoskins
September 30, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Justice in Question

National and state advocates pushing for wrongful conviction reforms judged that Indiana was behind other jurisdictions in strengthening its justice system, but they emphasized that ongoing discussions were a good starting point for the Hoosier legal community.

But within a day in mid-September, advocates turned to a new train of thought as the state moved forward on a significant piece of reform while the prosecutor in Indiana's largest county showed the legal process can triumph over a public cry for justice.

With those two instances, experts noted that Indiana is no longer "slightly behind" but rather on pace with many jurisdictions putting reforms in place to prevent systematic criminal justice errors from happening.

"It's amazing what one vote by a court can do," said Stephen Saloom, attorney and policy director for the non-profit Innocence Project in New York. "What we've seen is an indication of how seriously Indiana takes the reforms that can increase the accuracy of the entire criminal (justice) process. This definitely changes how your state is viewed nationally."

A week earlier, Saloom and other state and national advocates described Indiana as being slightly behind for how, up to that point, it had adopted reforms for preventing wrongful convictions and improving the criminal justice system overall. Of the causes that most often contribute to wrongful convictions – eyewitness misidentifications, invalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions or admissions, and bad information from informants or snitches – Indiana had implemented only one of the five key reforms believed to help address those issues: an automatic DNA-testing statute, Indiana Code 35-38-7, which has been in effect since July 2001.

Nationally, most states had adopted those automatic DNA-testing laws while other reforms were happening sporadically; a handful had implemented DNA preservation statutes, recorded policeinterrogation rules, and eyewitnessidentification reform policies. Some have even established "innocence" commissions to study broad-based criminal justice reforms in these areas.

After about five months of consideration, the Indiana Supreme Court on Sept. 15 added a new Rule of Evidence requiring that statements obtained during police interrogations must be recorded before they can be entered into evidence in felony cases.

A three-justice majority agreed to add Indiana Rule 617, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2011. The lag time will allow Marion County's law enforcement agencies to buy necessary equipment, train officers, and implement the new policies.

Noting how electronically recorded interrogations assist courts and can be used as a potent law-enforcement tool for guilt or innocence, the new rule specifically mandates that an audio-video recording be made within a jail, law enforcement agency station house, or facility owned and operated by law enforcement.

Seven exemptions are included:

  • Statements made as part of routine processing or booking
  • Statements made when the suspect does not agree to be electronically recorded
  • When there is an equipment malfunction
  • When the interrogation takes place in another jurisdiction
  • When law enforcement officers reasonably believe the crime under investigation isn't a felony
  • The statement made is spontaneous and not in response to a question
  • Substantial exigent circumstances exist that prevent the recording

Approving justices expect the recordings will lead to fewer factual disputes in court and reduce the number of motions to suppress evidence, as well as possibly leading to more guilty pleas.

"With the foregoing considerations in mind, the Court finds that the interests of justice and sound judicial administration will be served by the adoption of a new Rule of Evidence."

Dissenting were Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan, who highlighted the Indiana law enforcement community's integrity and existing practice as reasons not to amend the rule.

"There are states where bad conduct by police or prosecutors has led to repeated injustice in the criminal process," the chief justice wrote. "Indiana has not been such a place. My assessment of the honesty and professionalism of Indiana's public safety officers leads me to conclude that today's action is not warranted."

Justice Sullivan observed that many state police agencies have already taken this initiative on their own, so the rule isn't necessary.

Research cited by the majority noted that of more than 450 law enforcement agencies surveyed and currently recording interrogations, suspects' cooperation hasn't been impacted much with the recordings.

Stephen Johnson, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, said the new rule will not save courts time but will simply shift arguments. Johnson said he's already received calls from prosecutors who plan to do their best in implementing the rule but see a variety of issues that will likely arise.

"No longer will the inquiry be whether a suspect was afforded his constitutional rights and gave a voluntary statement," he said. "It will be whether Rule 617 was complied with in every aspect in all felony cases."

More than 300 public comments came into the court's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure during the March 30 to April 30 comment period. Of those, 89 comments came from law enforcement officers, 80 from the general public, 36 from prosecutors, 27 from public defenders, 61 from other attorneys, five from judges, and five from other judicial officers.

The court committee conducted several hearings on the topic and voted 5-1 not to recommend the new rule, but the divided court agreed the move was necessary.

"This is wonderful news," said attorney and law professor Fran Watson, who leads the wrongful conviction clinic at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis. "It's good to see that Indiana is moving forward in favor of recording these police interrogations, and this is a step toward assuring justice in the system."

Indiana Public Defender Council director Larry Landis was also pleased with the court's decision, adding the new rule largely mirrors what had been proposed.

"There's nothing like seeing or hearing the questioning, rather than having a judge or jury listen to someone describe what was said at a later time," he said. "This increases the quality of evidence overall, and it's a very significant and important step in protecting our system."

Just as important is a decision also made Sept. 15 by Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, who announced that the man accused of killing seven people in the 2006 Hamilton Avenue slayings – the city's worst mass killing in history – wouldn't face the death penalty. Brizzi said he made the decision to pursue life imprisonment without parole in part because of concerns about evidence that prosecutors have against the accused killer, Desmond Turner.

"I think this is the right decision, given the evidence that would be admissible at trial," Brizzi told media outside the court. "Our ultimate goal is to see that Mr. Turner spends the rest of his life in prison and is never free to hurt anyone else again. I think this decision will achieve that goal."

The bench trial before Marion Superior Judge Robert Altice is set to begin Oct. 12.

Hearing that news, combined with the Indiana Supreme Court's rule on recorded interrogations, gave wrongful conviction advocates positive notes to talk about.

"This is a brave decision that will not be popular with many people, but it tells of how prosecutors are being a lot more courageous and honest about the limitations that are out there," McAuliffe said. "That balances safety versus trying to prove something with a death sentence, despite the evidence. It hasn't happened as much as it should, but it did (now), and that's what we're seeing more of. We're admitting as a system that we've got some problems, but there's a way to go about justice honestly and efficiently."

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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT