Technical difficulties snag high-profile appeal arguments

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After a hiccup in the state judiciary’s online access to oral arguments, Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker borrowed some words from television broadcasters of the past: “Please stand by.”

Responding to technical difficulties that prevented a high-profile appeal from being listed on the online calendar and then from being viewed live Monday afternoon, the chief judge assured the public and legal community that webcast arguments should be working fine now after the issues surfaced earlier in the week.

A three-judge Indiana Court of Appeals panel heard arguments Monday in Paula Brattain, et al. v. Richmond State Hospital, et al., No. 49A02-0908-CV-718, which involves a class action suit where Marion Superior Judge John Hanley last year ordered the state to pay $42.4 million in back pay to past and present state employees. The state is appealing that judgment, believed to be the largest ever class action judgment against the state.

But the state judiciary didn’t list that argument in its online calendar. Later, technical difficulties led to the arguments not being broadcast live Monday afternoon.

Finding out about the issues, Chief Judge Baker released a statement that was posted on the judiciary’s website today, noting that the oral argument was “inadvertently not Web cast simultaneously with the argument.”

His explanation notes that the court’s webcasting equipment failed and had to be reconfigured, and that the IT staff resolved those issues. The system should permit real-time viewing for all future webcasts, the chief judge said. The entry for Brattain can be found online.

“The Web casting effort attempts to integrate new-age technology and centuries-old legal tradition,” Chief Judge Baker said. “The Court is striving to provide the public with opportunities to witness fine appellate advocacy and provide a better understanding of the role of courts of review within the judicial system.”


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.