ILNews

Supreme Court uses PBS to educate public on courts

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court is teaming up with the state’s Public Broadcasting Service to offer specials informing residents about the court system.

The programs will cover a variety of topics including pro se representation, the importance of jury service, alternative dispute resolution, and will also include several Indiana Supreme Court oral arguments. The videos will begin airing Thursday.

Indiana Supreme Court public information officer Kathryn Dolan said the programs are part of a new partnership between PBS and the Supreme Court and there will be others offered in the future. The programs in this series are the same that are available online on the court’s website. Dolan said the Supreme Court is pleased that PBS will be offering a new audience for the videos.

All eight Indiana PBS stations will offer the programming, although not all of their schedules have been updated to include the series. The first program set to air Thursday is “Family Matters: Choosing to Represent Yourself in Court.”


Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, Indiana Paralegal Association, Indiana State Bar Association, Indiana Supreme Court, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provided funding for the series.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT