ILNews

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.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT