Indiana Supreme Court seeks public comment on proposed court rule changes

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00
The Indiana Supreme Court’s seal is displayed prominently on the court’s new conference table, which was constructed by inmates housed at the Pendleton Correctional Facility. (IL photo/Daniel Carson)

The Indiana Supreme Court is asking for public comment on several proposed amendments to the Indiana Rules of Court. 

The public has until noon on Nov. 17 to offer feedback.  

Among the proposed changes are amendments to two Access to Court Records Rules, including a change to Rule 5(D) that would make attorney email addresses confidential in the Indiana Roll of Attorneys unless the attorney authorizes their email to be public.  

The other change would be to Rule 5(C)(3) and would clarify that the rule, which protects the personal information of witnesses and victims of a crime, does not protect the personal information of criminal defendants.  

Another proposed amendment would expand opportunities under Admission and Discipline Rule 6.2, allowing pro bono publico representation to include service to bona fide charitable or community service organizations.  

The court has also proposed amendments to three criminal rules under the Indiana Rules of Court.  

The first amendment would change Rule 4(D), decreasing the trial continuance period from 90 to 70 days. 

Another change, to Rule 6.1, would update language on several requirements for counsel in capital cases.  

A proposed amendment to Criminal Rule 4.2 would require the trial court to provide notice to the prosecuting attorney after receiving defendant’s written notice of the defendant’s location and request to initiate proceedings in the non-custodial county

A full breakdown of proposed amendments can be found on the high court’s website.

 

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}