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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT