Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
All of us should be grateful to practice law in Indiana. Still, it’s important to acknowledge both the strengths and the challenges of our legal system.
Here’s what Indiana gets right:
Clear case numbering: Indiana’s case numbering system is refreshingly straightforward compared to the complicated formats used in many other states. For example, “53C05-2100-DN-000001” immediately tells us the type of case (a divorce with no children), the month and year filed, and the specific court involved.
Appellate court clarity: Over the past decade, Indiana’s appellate courts have become models of clear legal reasoning. Their opinions are accessible and well-explained, regardless of whether you agree with the outcome. Gone are the days when dissents were little more than legal shaming without proper citation.
Efficient disciplinary commission: The disciplinary commission is effective at filtering out frivolous complaints. While receiving a letter from them is always nerve-wracking (and why these aren’t sent by certified mail remains a mystery), every attorney knows the sinking feeling of reading those first few lines.
High-quality judges: With rare exceptions, Indiana’s judges are excellent. Even those who struggle initially tend to improve over time. The main issue—shared by some attorneys as well—is a lack of filter, leading to unnecessarily harsh comments. Most of us accept this as part of the profession. As my father, also an attorney, would say: “I don’t have a hide like a rhinoceros!” I suspect most attorneys feel similarly.
Collegial attorneys: In my experience (though some may disagree), Indiana attorneys—including prosecutors—are collegial and easy to work with. The best way to resolve conflicts is often a simple phone call, not a hastily written, angry motion. Direct conversation can de-escalate most situations.
The major drawback in Indiana is its sentencing laws:
Draconian sentencing: Indiana’s criminal sentencing laws are harsh. The elimination of two-for-one credit time for serious felonies in the past decade was intended to balance reduced maximum penalties, but instead, the credit for more serious offenses is now three-for-one. This shift has not achieved the intended correction.
Excessive sentences: Sentences in many drug cases—including those involving juveniles—are often cruel and excessive. Appellate courts typically defer to trial judges and rarely intervene. If you read these cases daily, as I do, you’ll be shocked to see sentences of 40 years or more are not uncommon.
A glimmer of hope
In 2024, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Lane v. State, 123 N.E.3d 456 (Ind. 2024). The Court clarified and expanded the framework for appellate sentence review, allowing defendants to challenge sentences based on either prong alone, rather than requiring both:
“Today, we advance our 7(B) jurisprudence by setting sentence review in the context of the policies and sentencing options that emerged from recent reforms to Indiana’s criminal-justice system,” the court ruled.
The constitution’s promise
Article 1, Section 18 of the Indiana Constitution is clear about the purpose of the penal code:
“The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice.”
Reformation—not punishment or vindictive justice—is the guiding principle. This language is unique, having been codified in 1851 and present in the original 1816 version. Only Oregon has similar constitutional language.
Final thoughts
Is it cynical to think real change won’t come until a legislator’s own child is affected? Perhaps. But until the Indiana Supreme Court urges the legislature to act with integrity, discouragement is understandable.•
__________
Roy Graham is a criminal and family lawyer in Bloomington. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.