ILNews

Supreme Court extends audio-video transcript pilot project

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A pilot project in three Indiana courts that replaces written transcripts with audio/video camera recordings has been extended and expanded because two of the three courts haven’t generated the anticipated number of appeals necessary to evaluate the system.

The Supreme Court recently posted on its website an order dated Dec. 18 that extended the pilot project that was to expire Dec. 31, 2013.

Under the project initiated in 2012, three Indiana courtrooms were equipped with video cameras supplied by Jefferson Audio Video Systems of Louisville. Ky. Camera recordings from those three courts will form the official appellate transcripts in 15 cases from each court.

In two of the three courts, fewer than 15 appeals designated as camera-transcript cases were generated by the end of 2013, according to the order. Marion Superior Criminal Division 6 Judge Mark Stoner’s court was the lone venue in which 15 appeals were generated using the AV system.

The order indicates that five juvenile cases were generated from the court of Tippecanoe Superior Judge Faith Graham but no civil appeals arose from the court of Allen Superior Judge Nancy Boyer.

“In order to achieve the goal of fifteen designated civil cases, this Court authorizes any of the judicial officers in Marion County, in Tippecanoe County, and in Allen County to use the courtrooms and the JAVS equipment for the purpose of conducting civil case trials,” the order says. “If a Notice of Appeal is filed in any of those cases, the presiding judicial officer may designate that appeal as a pilot project case.”



 

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 is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT