ILNews

Vanderburgh County requests new court magistrate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seated alone at the table in front of the Indiana General Assembly’s Commission on Courts, Vanderburgh Circuit Judge David Kiely recently asked for a new magistrate in his court.

Unusual this year is that Vanderburgh County is the only county to come before the commission making such a request. Equally unusual will be if Vanderburgh County has to ask only once.

The Legislative Council assigned the Commission on Courts the sole duty of reviewing the county’s appeal for a new judicial officer. In previous years, counties have had to come before the panel for several years in a row before a bill adding a judge or magistrate passed through the Legislature.

kiely Kiely

Getting the commission’s recommendation, while not required, is viewed as giving the county’s request more weight in the Statehouse. However, even with the commission’s approval, whether a bill passes depends on the condition of the state budget.

Commission chair Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, acknowledged counties can get tired of repeatedly having to ask for more judges and magistrates only to then be denied by the Legislature.

“It’s frustrating to that county that’s asked for it, but to us as legislators, our primary job is to pass a balanced budget,” Steele said. “… If we can’t afford it, we can’t afford it. It’s easy to say no when you’re broke.”

Kiely is confident the commission and the Legislature will give their thumbs up to adding a magistrate.

He pointed out that although the caseload has grown substantially, Vanderburgh Circuit Court has been operating for several decades with one judge and one magistrate. Currently the court’s two judicial officers are handling the work of four.

“I’m optimistic that the commission will recommend the request for the new judicial officer for the Circuit Court,” Kiely said. “I’m very optimistic that our local representatives will push the bill and pass it.”

‘Numbers aren’t going down’

On average, Vanderburgh Circuit Court handles 1,600 major felony cases each year on top of 750 major civil cases. Trials start at 8 a.m. Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays while other matters are handled in court daily at 9 a.m. and 1 p.m.

Two-thirds of all felony cases in Vanderburgh County appear in the Circuit Court.

“I truly enjoy the court and the workload,” Kiely said, “but the numbers aren’t going down.”

The Evansville Bar Association board of directors was surprised at Vanderburgh County’s caseload, said Scott Wylie, association president.

Local attorneys have complained about the “fairly significant delay” in getting a hearing and a trial. The understaffing and rising demand are apparent every day, but the board was still shocked by the state data.

According to the Division of State Court Administration, Vanderburgh County was the 4th highest in Indiana in terms of severity of need for more judicial officers. The 2012 Weighted Caseload Measures shows the 14 judges and magistrates in Vanderburgh Superior and Circuit courts doing the work of just over 22.

Vanderburgh County is expected to move into 3rd place soon because that slot’s current holder, Johnson County, got its request granted for a new judge through the General Assembly.

In the Circuit Court, Kiely and Magistrate Judge Kelli Fink each handle a weighted caseload of 1.93 which equates to enough work for 3.87 judicial officers, state statistics show.

Seeing the hard numbers and knowing the demand firsthand prompted the bar association board to write a letter of support for the new magistrate.

The delays in getting into court can create more difficulties or compound the current problems for the litigants, Wylie said. For example, landlords can go months without rent, and litigants can get pushed into personal bankruptcy while waiting to get before a judge.

Such a situation, Wylie said, is especially frustrating for attorneys who want to help their clients but can do nothing about the wait.

Kiely maintained the Circuit Court does not want people to have to wait and is working to prevent that from happening. He said the backlog has not resulted in individuals being denied due process.

“I truly believe we are one of the most efficient courts in the state,” he said. “We’ve just reached a point where we need another judicial officer.”

Budget constraints

wylie Wylie

When Hendricks Superior Judge Robert Freese testified before the commission in 2012, he told the legislators his county had made the request for additional magistrates for the past two or three years.

Freese was not alone. Prior reports highlight counties appearing year after year, especially during the economic recession, requesting new judges and magistrates.

The commission typically approves the requests, although Steele and Rep. Kathy Richardson, R-Noblesville, maintain the panel is not a rubber stamp. Along with articulating the need for another judicial officer, the commission wants to know if the county council and the local bar association support the request, and if the county is committed to building any additional space that is needed for the new judge or magistrate.

Since the Division of State Court Administration has been providing the weighted case-load measures, the commission has a better understanding what is happening across the state, Richardson said. The reports allow the commission to compare the caseloads between counties.

Fiscal concerns and tight state budgets in recent years are mostly blamed for the courts not getting their requests fulfilled. With a little breathing room opening in the state’s finances, Steele was able to get his measure, Senate Enrolled Act 486, approved during the 2013 session. This bill provided Hamilton, Hendricks and Owen counties with new judicial officers.

“Oftentimes, a court may appear before this committee on two or three occasions and it’s almost like a rite of passage. You’ve been here three times now it’s time to do it,” Steele said. “But it always comes down to budget, if they have enough money for it or not.”

The state picks up the tab for the salaries and benefits of the judges and magistrates. According to the fiscal analysis of Steele’s bill by the Legislative Services Agency, the salary for magistrates in fiscal year 2013 was $104,064 while for judges it was $130,080.

Freese did not criticize the process that counties have to go through to get new judicial officers.

“I’ve been involved in the legislative process a long, long time,” he said. “You kind of know how they work. You just know eventually things move in the right manner and maybe that is the way things need to be.”

County budget considerations influenced Kiely to request a magistrate.

Adding a judge would require the county to pay for an additional court reporter, bailiff and riding bailiff which could boost the expenditures by $250,000 to $300,000 annually. Conversely, for a magistrate, the county would only have to provide a yearly salary supplement of $4,000.

At the commission’s July meeting, Kiely said he has the support of the bar association and noted space is available in the courts building for the new magistrate. He still has to appear before the Vanderburgh County Council to get its approval, but Kiely said the council liaison has told him council members would also support the request.

The Commission on Courts has yet to vote on Kiely’s request. Steele delayed the vote because not all the commission members were present at the meeting.•
 

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 like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT