ILNews

Ukrainian judges observe Indiana legal system

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Five Ukrainian judges have been in central Indiana this week examining the U.S. judicial system. The judges, who arrived Nov. 15, have attended an oral argument and luncheon at the Indiana Supreme Court, viewed criminal and civil proceedings in Indianapolis and Noblesville, and visited the Indiana Women's Prison. They are scheduled to leave central Indiana Saturday.

The visiting judges are Liliya Anatoliyivna Andryushyna, Judge, Makeevka City Court; Taras Mykhaylovych Antonyak, Judge, Ivano Frankivsk City Court; Andriy Yuriyovych Malyeyev, Judge and Head of the Court, Ivano-Frankivsk City Court; Volodymyr Mykolayovych Shyyan, Judge and Head of the Court, Kyiv District Court of Poltava; and Serhiy Mykolayovych Yaroshenko, Assistant to Deputy Head Judge of the Criminal Chamber, Appellate Court. Iryna Oleksiyivna Khymchak accompanied them as a facilitator.

The Ukrainian judges also met with Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Hamilton Superior Court Magistrate William Greenway, and attorney Julie C. Sipe of the Indiana Judicial Center.

The judges are in Indiana as part of the Open World Program - an exchange program that allows participants to get an inside look at the U.S. judicial system and develop ties with the U.S. judges who host them.

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. 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