ILNews

Supreme Court hears arguments in victims' advocates subpoena case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments today involving the subpoena of records from a domestic violence agency by a defendant who had been charged with two counts of Class A felony child molesting. The agency argued that due to statutory privilege between victims and advocates they did not need to provide the requested information.

In In re Subpoena to Crisis Connection, No. 19S05-1012-CR-678, defendant Ronald K. Fromme requested that Crisis Connection, a domestic violence agency with locations in Jasper, Tell City, and Rockport, release records on a person who had talked with advocates at the Jasper location.

The trial court ordered Crisis Connection to produce the records for an in camera review, but the organization asserted that Indiana Code 35-37-6-9 creates an “absolute privilege” for advocacy organizations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision July 15, 2010.

In today’s oral arguments, Jon Laramore, representing Crisis Connection, said that the privilege between a victim and advocate was the same as that between a psychotherapist, social worker, or physician and a patient or client.

Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. asked Laramore if, because Crisis Connection received government funding, it should be considered a government agency similar to the way law enforcement is a government agency, and information from law enforcement is available to the defendant.

Laramore said that his client did receive federal funding, as do many domestic violence agencies, but that it is run as a private organization.

It was pointed out that if a counselor for victims learns that there might be child abuse, the counselor must issue a report to Indiana Department of Child Services. The organizations don’t release their clients’ entire files in those cases, just the information needed for those reports.

The counselors for these organizations also tell their clients that everything they say is confidential, and they explain that if there is suspected child abuse they are required to file a report with DCS, Laramore said. A victim can also sign a waiver if he or she no longer wants the record to remain confidential.

If the court considers balancing when a defendant can subpoena a domestic violence organization with the right to confidentiality, Laramore asked the justices to consider People v. Stanaway, a Michigan case that said defendants must have concrete evidence showing why they are seeking information and not just speculation.

He added that there are currently at least 25 subpoenas pending against domestic violence advocacy organizations around Indiana.

S. Anthony Long, Fromme’s attorney, said the request was justified for his client’s defense. He also said that his client met two of the three steps used in balancing this kind of request based on Wlliams v. State of Indiana: a sufficient designation of the items sought to be discovered; the items requested are material to the defense; and if the particularity and materiality requirements are met, the trial court must grant the request unless there is a showing of “paramount interest” in non-disclosure.

Long and the justices discussed the statute, and examined the question, “if the Legislature took the time to carve out exceptions to the privilege for advocates, why didn’t they include situations like Fromme’s?”

They also discussed the difference between Williams in Indiana and Stanaway in Michigan.

Justice Sullivan asked how Long knew there was something in the records and that he wasn’t just “fishing,” as Laramore put it in his briefs.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard also commented that as someone who reads child molestation cases for a living, what Long described as strained family relations and other issues that lead Long to believe there is something in the record that could help his client’s case were “extraordinarily ordinary” circumstances and did not seem to show any concrete evidence for this particular case.

This case was previously reported  in the Jan. 5-18, 2011 edition of Indiana Lawyer.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT