Issue 18.1 JAN/FEB 2009
CONTENTS Jury Administration Conference ..... 2 Celebrating Lincoln ....................... 3 Indiana Commission on Courts 2008 Annual Report...................... 4 Putting a Foot in the Revolving Door: Reducing Recidivism in Blackford County ......................................... 6 2009 State of the Judiciary: A Court System for Tough Times .... 8 Two Among Many: New Faces Joining the Ranks of Indiana Trial Judges .................... 10 2008 General Election Results ..... 12 Two New Members of the Indiana Public Defender Commission ....... 13 Clarification on Public Defender Expenditures ............................... 13 SIDEBAR Jane Spencer Craney .................. 14 BITS & BYTES Getting the Show on the Road: JTAC's Speedy Project to Help DCS Comply with HEA 1001 ............... 16 BRENDA'S BAILIWICK Being a Judge in the Back Office . 18 SPOTLIGHT Supreme Court Committee Thanks Attorney Member for a Job Well Done and Welcomes New Member ............................. 19
2 JAN/FEB 2009
JURY ADMINISTRATION Conference Held: Well Attended and Informative
udges have attended continuing education seminars and conferences for many years. Recently the Supreme Court decided that court employees should also be given the opportunity to further their education and training by attending their own informational events. One hundred thirteen (113) members of court and clerk staff from sixty six (66) counties across the state gathered in Indianapolis in November for a jury administration conference. It was the first live educational offering for the new judicial branch personnel education initiative. Conferees called it an overwhelming success. Those in attendance completed evaluation forms and gave the day high marks. One person said, “I honestly came in to this thinking I already knew all there was to know in this area, but was quickly informed of easier and better ways to handle jury administration.” Others responded: “exceeded my expectations,” “very informative,” “wonderful job of answering my unasked questions,” and “a wealth of information provided!” The conference provided those attending with both national and state perspectives on the jury administration process. Thomas Munsterman, a national leader in jury reform, spoke on the objectives of jury management and on future trends in the area.
Hamilton County Superior Court Judge William Hughes and Allen County Superior Court (Criminal) Judge Frances Gull gave informative presentations on jury rules and applicable statutes while discussing their practical application at the local level. They used life situations and scenarios to highlight important issues while encouraging conferees to participate in discussion of current problems. During a working lunch, those attending shared experiences and developed resource contacts. Michelle Goodman, Indiana Judicial Center (IJC) Staff Attorney assisting the Judicial Conference Jury Committee, answered questions generated by the audience. Jill Russell, State Court Administration, offered an optional session on the jury management system provided through Supreme Court administrative offices. The Judicial Center is very happy to send conference material to any requesting court and have IJC staff available to travel to individual counties for additional training. If you have suggestions for future staff educational offerings, please forward them to Barbara Arnold Harcourt, Senior Judge and Judicial Staff Attorney at the Indiana Judicial Center, (317) 2345996 firstname.lastname@example.org. By Judge Barbara Arnold Harcourt, Senior Judge & Judicial Staff Attorney, Indiana Judicial Center
he Indiana Supreme Court partnered with the Indiana State Bar Association to host a statewide birthday bash for Abraham Lincoln. The 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth was February 12, 2009. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard invited attorneys to join him in honoring America’s 16th President by visiting classrooms around the state.
It is estimated that 30,000 Indiana school children learned about Lincoln through the volunteer program “Why Lincoln Was A Lawyer.” The project was created by Courts in the Classroom, the educational outreach program of the Indiana Supreme Court. It is specifically designed for attorneys to teach school children about Lincoln and the law. Attorney talking points and teacher lesson plans are available online at courts.IN.gov/citc/lessons/lincoln Each participating classroom received a book about Abraham Lincoln, courtesy of the Indiana State Bar Association. Chief Justice Shepard visited Crispus Attucks Medical Magnet High School, an Indianapolis Public School. “This volunteer opportunity is a wonderful way to help students learn about citizenship and the law. It is a chance to relate the story of an Indiana child who eventually became one of our nation’s greatest leaders. I am confident others who join in the celebration will be glad they participated.” In the 2009 State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice Shepard spoke about the lessons learned from Lincoln’s life as a lawyer. The Chief Justice also spoke about Lincoln’s Indiana roots and the pride associated with having Lincoln as a native son. He received rousing applause when he reminded the General Assembly what former Governor Otis Bowen used to say about Lincoln and his association with Illinois. “Indiana made Lincoln and Lincoln made Illinois!” The complete comments of Chief Justice Shepard on the Lincoln program can be found in the final paragraphs of his address in the section entitled "An Anniversary That Prompts Hope." The Lincoln program is about more than honoring an Indiana native or fulfilling a curriculum requirement. The project speaks to the heart of what it means to be a citizen and what it means to play a role in our democracy. There are many Lincoln quotes worth remembering and many great speeches worth reciting—for school children across the state, February 12th was a day to examine why Lincoln’s life is worth emulating. PHOTO. Alexander Gardner, original negative, Feb. 5, 1865; Library of Congress. COVER PHOTO. Alexander Gardner, glass transparency, Feb. 5, 1865; Library of Congress.
JAN/FEB 2009 3
INDIANA COMMISSION ON COURTS
2008 ANNUAL REPORT The Indiana General Assembly created the Commission on Courts to review, conduct research, and hold public hearings on all requests for new courts or changes in jurisdiction of existing courts, and to review, report on, and make recommendations concerning any other matters relating to court administration that it deems appropriate. The Commission is required to submit a report to the General Assembly before November 1 of each year. Its thirteen members include the Chief Justice, four members from the Indiana House of Representatives, four members from the Indiana Senate, two appointees of the Senate President Pro Tempore one who is a sitting judge and one who is a county commissioner, and two appointees of the Speaker of the House, one being a member of the county council and one being a circuit court clerk. This past year for the Commission, Martinsville Senator Richard Bray served as Chairperson and Hammond Representative Linda Lawson was Vice-Chairperson. The Commission met four times during the interim between sessions to study court related issues. At its last meeting of the year on October 24 it made a number of findings of fact and recommendations. The full text of the Commission’s report may be found on the General Assembly’s website at http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/reports/CRTSBB1.pdf.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IT RECOMMENDED that all former holders of a judicial office who have served at least four consecutive years as a judge or justice should be allowed to serve as private judges and that private judges should be allowed to hear domestic relations cases. IT RECOMMENDED that a person should be allowed to participate in a court established Alcohol and Drug Service Program if the person is arrested for a misdemeanor or felony or referred to the program by another court, a probation department, the Department of Correction, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Division of Mental Health and Addiction, a prosecuting attorney’s office, or pretrial services.
IT RECOMMENDED that the four judges of the Lake Superior Court County Division should be nominated by the Lake County Superior Court Judicial Nominating Commission and appointed by the Governor and be subject to the question of retention or rejection by the Lake County electorate every six years. IT RECOMMENDED that the judge of the Allen Circuit Court should be allowed to appoint a second full-time magistrate and to remove the judge’s authority to appoint a hearing officer who has the powers of a magistrate and whose salary is paid by the county.
IT RECOMMENDED that the Automated Record Keeping fee should be increased from $7 to $10 after June 30, 2009, and before July 1, 2013, and decreased to $7 after June 30, 2013.
IT MADE the following findings of fact and recommendation concerning merit selection of judges of the St. Joseph Superior Court:
IT FOUND that no county court will exist in Indiana as of January 1, 2009 and therefore recommended that the repeal of the law concerning the establishment and operation of county courts.
• The merit selection system for St. Joseph Superior Court judges has attracted outstanding lawyers to seek and assume judicial careers and has provided those men and women with the ability to rule in a fair and impartial manner without fear of partisan retaliation for their decisions.
IT RECOMMENDED establishing the Sixth District of the Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana as of January 1, 2010, with the entire State constituting the Sixth District. 4 JAN/FEB 2009
• The merit selection system holds these judges accountable to the people of their community for their professional and personal behavior
• In calling on the General Assembly to provide for the merit selection of judges, Governor Roger Branigan in 1964 said that the State should “offer to the judges…the promise of reasonable tenure if they perform well, and which will insure them, to the fullest extent possible, freedom from political pressures.” The current system for selecting and retaining St. Joseph Superior Court judges achieves the objectives set out by Governor Branigan in 1964. • Therefore, the Commission recommends that the current system of merit selection of judges of the St. Joseph County Superior Court should not be changed. Rep. Ryan Dvorak, South Bend, submitted the following minority statement to the Commission concerning this recommendation: “I respectfully submit a differing opinion from that of the majority. While there may be meritorious aspects to a system of appointed judges, the comparative merits of such a system are not at issue. Under debate was whether there is any rational reason for St. Joseph County to be subject to distinctly different laws than the rest of the state---potentially in violation of the constitutional prohibition against special legislation. I contend the Commission heard no testimony validating this disparate treatment. Therefore, I will continue to work with the General Assembly to give the citizens of St. Joseph County the opportunity to make their own decision as to how their local judicial system is structured.” IT RECOMMENDED that the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) and the Indiana State Bar Association should continue to discuss how to deal with issues concerning noncode provisions of the Indiana Code and, if necessary, the LSA should make recommendations to the General Assembly concerning the use of noncode provisions. IT RECOMMENDED that the General Assembly should defer action concerning Trial Rule 60.5 that allows courts to mandate the expenditure of funds by local governments while the Supreme Court continues to respond to this through the adoption of rules. IT COMMENDED the Division of State Court Administration on the creation of the retention election website for Indiana's appellate jurists. PHOTO. Juergen Priewe.
By James Walker, Director of Trial Court Management, State Court Administration
JAN/FEB 2009 5
PUTTING FOOT IN THE REVOLVING DOOR
e are too familiar
They set out to shut this revolving door through a program called Thinking for a Change. For purposes of their study they defined recidivism as “an individual who, within a three year period, commits additional criminal acts similar in nature to the originating offense within Blackford County and the contiguous counties of Jay, Grant, Wells and Delaware.” They sampled 100 random cases in order to establish a baseline of recidivism in Blackford County. The baseline was compared to the statistics of 55 individuals who were ordered to participate in the Thinking for a Change Program. An additional 55 individuals were chosen who were not required to participate in the program. The results of this study were quite dramatic.
PHOTO. Christopher Dodge.
6 JAN/FEB 2009
with the scene: a person is arrested, brought to court, found guilty and sentenced to jail or prison; after serving a sentence for the crime, that person is released back into society and is once again arrested, brought to court, and sentenced back to jail or prison. We have a name for this process: recidivism, and correction officials in Blackford County knew something had to be done.
They found that prior to the implementation of the program and based on the study of the 100 randomly sampled individuals, within a period of just 1 year, 21.5% of those individuals had committed a new criminal offense of a like kind to their original offense, and 32.25% had done so within 3 years. After the implementation of the Thinking for a Change Program, the recidivism rate dropped within the 1 year period from 21.5% to just 5.45%, and for those committing a similar crime within 3 years it had dropped from 32.25% to just 9.1%. Overall, the recidivism rate for the 1 and 3 year samples had been reduced by almost 75%, a remarkable achievement. Blackford Superior Court Judge John W. Forcum said: “This not only reflects
on the effectiveness of the programs in general but also on the hard work and professionalism of the Community Corrections and Probation staff. You can have the best programs available but if you don’t have the personnel to support them, they will not be effective.” The Blackford County Probation Department and the Blackford County Community Corrections Department began collaborating on case management of adult offenders in 2003. Together they wanted to learn more about the root problems
lectively began a slow and deliberate process of identifying individualized needs and placing those people in the best available programs. With guidance from the Indiana Department of Correction, and utilizing experts with knowledge in the field, both departments began exploring Evidence Based Programs and the methods used to identify the needs and risks associated with recidivism. Evidence Based Programs are those supported by sound scientific documentation as to their effectiveness and proven success.
"YOU CAN HAVE THE BEST PROGRAMS AVAILABLE BUT IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE PERSONNEL TO SUPPORT THEM, THEY WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE.” of repeat offenders and identify methods that might reduce the long standing and sometimes too acceptable rates of recidivism. They discovered that while each of their departments separately dealt with Court-referred adult clients, often their agendas and results in similar areas were conflicting and deficient. These two departments began the process of combining their strategies and working in a cohesive system of rehabilitation. They began with two simple assumptions: 1) every client/offender is unique, and 2) the traditional and classic methods of relating risk to recidivism may be neither productive nor cost effective. They col-
Aaron Henderson, Chief Probation Officer, and Deb Perry, Director of Community Corrections for Blackford County, worked together to change the face of local corrections programs. They shared a belief that for too long the local jails and the Indiana Department of Correction have simply been revolving doors of justice with the shared expectation that offenders will return. They decided that if this door was to be shut then changes had to be made at the grassroots level. Both Henderson and Perry began by encouraging every supervising officer to deal with each client as an individual and not as a statistic. Too often the tendency
was to think of and classify these clients in terms of their risks rather than as people. It is much easier to classify people according to their risk of future behavior rather than to find solutions to their individualized, and sometimes complicated, problems. The officials in Blackford County implemented the Thinking for a Change Program and adapted their policies and procedures to focus attention on the individual needs of their clients. They utilized the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R), which is an acceptable method of identifying client risk and behavior and the specific areas that need to be addressed. A treatment program could be utilized to address one or more of the underlying social deficiencies that are present in a majority of adult offenders. Through the early stages of the program implementation, it became obvious that each client/offender was looking differently at his/her own life and situation. The probation and community corrections officers were also looking differently at the clients. The pieces of the recidivism puzzle were starting to come together in East Central Indiana. The study is ongoing but these initial results are proof to Blackford County that the program does work and additional programs and opportunities for adult offenders should continue to be developed. Indiana correctional professionals have generally been slow to embrace evidence based programs, but they are very enthusiastic about the results of this program.
Editor’s Note: Contributors to this article were Aaron M. Henderson and Deb Perry who have also written a more detailed report entitled: Reducing Recidivism/Blackford County Efforts to Reduce Recidivism, dated 10/14/2008. Anyone interested in obtaining a copy may contact Aaron Henderson at Blackford County Courts, 110 W. Washington Street, Hartford City, IN 47348, or by email at AHenderson@blackfordcounty.com. If you would like more information about best practices in probation supervision, review the Indiana Probation Best Practices Guide at courts.IN.gov/center/pubs/best-practices or contact the Indiana Judicial Center.
courttimes court times
JAN/FEB 2009 7
Court System FOR Tough Times A
Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard delivered his 22nd address to a joint session of the Indiana General Assembly on January 14, 2009. He delivered his first State of the Judiciary in 1988. What follows is an excerpted version. The full version is available on the Indiana Courts website at courts.IN.gov/supreme/state_jud.html.
here was a time when people in the judiciary viewed their task in terms of the rulings—guilty/not guilty, sustained or overruled. Judges listened to the evidence and considered the law, and then ruled. A courtroom was a place of relative detachment.
But what courts do is intimately connected to society. When the inevitable disputes of life arise, people rely on courts to resolve disputes quickly and cheaply, providing confidence that laws are enforced, on some reasonable timetable, at some reasonable expense. Just as trust in the mechanics of finance empowers the economy, effective and reliable courts are a key part of what keeps America going. Indiana’s courts are doing our part to contribute toward the recovery.
sembly to reorganize Indiana’s effort to protect children. The decision to transfer the cost of caring for these children from the counties to the state was partly a matter of property tax relief, but it also gave Indiana the chance to create a safety net for children that is better staffed, better coordinated, and more purposeful than ever. The executive and judicial branches have acted with remarkable cooperation and urgency to make ready for this opportunity, training hundreds of court and Department of Child Services (DCS) staff. House Bill 1001 was the single largest financial commitment to the needs of troubled children in state history. We are determined it will make a difference in their lives.
STATE of the JUDICIARY
The Pressure on Families A bad economy puts pressures on families—many times in ways that affect children. This development emphasizes how important it was for the General As8 JAN/FEB 2009
Wrapped inside this initiative is a story about efficient government. Among the new features is the electronic exchange of case information between juvenile probation officers, the courts, and DCS caseworkers. Our trial court technology staff, led by Mary DePrez, quickly constructed the computer technology to make this happen, in-house, with-
out General Fund money. This effort saved time and money, but it will also get services and placement for troubled children more quickly and effectively. And it will allow Indiana to maximize the amount of federal reimbursement for providing services to children instead of failing to collect millions of dollars in federal reimbursements. With abuse and neglect rising, it is more urgent than ever that we provide threatened children with a guardian ad litem or a court appointed special advocate who speak up for children. They are often the only point of stability in a child’s world. The General Assembly recently enacted Governor Daniels’ proposal that all abused and neglected children have an advocate. Indiana does this by recruiting community volunteers, and thousands have volunteered. You gave us the money to recruit and train an even larger corps of volunteers. Last year new volunteers signed up at record levels—up 50% in one year, thanks in part to a cadre from the Indiana Retired Teachers Association. Some of the family stress that creates more cases of abuse manifests itself as domestic violence. We have created an electronic system in 72 counties that notifies law enforcement as soon as a domestic violence protective order is issued. It is a line of defense which we have financed with federal funds that is literally saving lives. Building better protection against domestic violence is not something you postpone in hard times; it’s something you race to accomplish. You can certainly see hard times in a criminal court. The defendants run the gamut from hardened felons to people who commit a misdemeanor. Most fall in between and most serve their time on probation or in community corrections. We have to be as smart as possible at matching sanctions to fit the offense and the offender. We are trying to do this in multiple ways. We have strengthened local correctional programs. We created new drug courts last year bringing the total to 29. Independent research show they produce a lower re-offense rate, and produce a better employment rate for offenders, all
"I promise you this: by summer Indiana will have trained more judges and pro bono lawyers and mediators to help people facing foreclosure than any other court system in America." at lower expense than more traditional penalties. We began two new drug and alcohol programs, and three new re-entry courts for returning offenders. We are at work on a new risk assessment system that will help us sort out the errant sheep from the truly dangerous.
The Foreclosure Crisis Indiana’s courts and lawyers have created a system—now emulated elsewhere—to support attorneys who are willing to volunteer to help needy citizens with civil legal problems. In addition to these pro bono lawyers, Indiana has over a thousand certified mediators who help people resolve disputes on their own and avoid the time and cost of trial. We believe these lawyers and mediators and judges can help with the growing challenge of mortgage foreclosure, which has risen 50% in five years in Indiana. Law and policy on these subjects is made by lawmakers, but courts must be adroit in handling individual cases. Sorting out when loan modification may be feasible and whether there’s a
way that people may manage to stay in their homes and doing that as promptly as possible, takes knowledge, skill, and commitment. Indiana’s effort on the foreclosure problem is being led by Lieutenant Governor Skillman. She and the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority have created the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network. The judicial branch is joining this campaign. I promise you this: by summer Indiana will have trained more judges and pro bono lawyers and mediators to help people facing foreclosure than any other court system in America.
PHOTO. Lindsey Borschel.
For more information about the Supreme Court's program to train lawyers to handle mortgage cases, visit courts.IN.gov/home
Internal Cost-Savings I want you to know we will manage our own work in ways that contribute to balancing the budget. Like the executive branch and the legislature, we froze our judicial pay and our staff’s. But, we are engaged in helping the state’s finances in other ways. Our year-old new electronic traffic citation system is in place. Gone are handwritten traffic tickets; the offender’s license and registration are scanned instead, and a legible ticket printed. Gone too is the time needed to enter and re-enter the information generated by Indiana’s 600 law enforcement agencies. The State Police and 57 other agencies are now using this system, saving time and money wherever we deploy it. Second, we have achieved universal use of our system to enable Indiana’s courts to send information about traffic cases to the BMV electronically, saving thousands of dollars in paper and data re-entry. And, this achievement will protect some $34 million in federal highway funds. Third, on the revenue side, how much the State can collect in delinquent tax— and how quickly the collections come in—depends in part on how promptly the Department of Revenue can process tax warrants through the trial courts. We worked with the Department of Revenue to construct computer technology that sends tax warrant information electronically to county clerks—for free. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
JAN/FEB 2009 9
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
Planning for Tomorrow Moments like the present, when great leaps forward are not in the cards, are a good occasion to map out the future. The Judicial Conference of Indiana, which consists of judges elected by their peers, has spent the last months planning for the future of our courts. A Board committee led by Judge Terry Shewmaker of Elkhart and Judge Mark Stoner of Indianapolis has issued a working document, now under discussion, that focuses on upgrading judicial and staff education, on building collaboration among judges in counties and between counties, on accelerating state support for trial court operation, and on sorting out the multiple selection systems by which Indiana chooses judges. We believe the end product will be a blueprint for an even stronger court system.
An Anniversary that Prompts Hope Governor Daniels quoted Abraham Lincoln recently. The judiciary will also observe the two hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth. He was many things and perhaps was Indiana’s greatest contribution to American history. He was also a first-rate lawyer and an energetic public citizen. And so, on Lincoln’s birthday, February 12th, with the help of teachers, the State Bar, local bars, and others, hundreds of judges and lawyers will go to Indiana’s classrooms to talk with students about Lincoln the President, Lincoln the lawyer, Lincoln the citizen, and about the kind of engaged citizens we want those students to become. In the midst of so much gloom, this will be a message that conveys hope about the future of our nation and our state. PHOTO. Lindsey Borschel.
Editor’s Note: The election in November 2008 was unprecedented in Indiana for the number of new trial court judges assuming duties on the bench. This article focuses attention on just two of the new jurists in our state.
athleen Tighe Coriden is taking her place in the judiciary with other newly elected judges from across the state. Like others, she is starting 2009 with a new set of responsibilities and great enthusiasm. She is settling into a routine as the Bartholomew Superior Court Judge. But unlike others, Coriden is accustomed to being called “Judge”, the black robe in nothing new, and presiding over a courtroom has a familiar feel—she’s been here before. In 1999, Governor Frank O’Bannon appointed Coriden to the Bartholomew Superior Court 2 seat when Judge Norman D. Curry retired. For three years she served as the judge, presiding over both civil and criminal matters. She believed that she was doing a good job for her county and hoped to continue in the role. She ran for election in 2002 and was deeply disappointed at the outcome. Voters made the decision to elect a different person to the position. Her brief judicial career came to a halt and Coriden took it personally. When she left the bench she vowed never to run again. Prior to her appointment Coriden had served as a deputy prosecutor. Instead of returning to that office, she took on a new challenge. She opened a law practice with her husband and son. She jokes that people asked her how she could manage being around family all the time. In reality, Coriden says they didn’t see each other that often. “We each had our own niche. My husband handled the workers’ compensation cases, my son was the city attorney, and I handled all of
10 JAN/FEB 2009
PHOTO. Indiana Judicial Center.
AM ONG O NG M ANY ANY
New trial court judges participated in several days of educational sessions in January.
NEW FACES JOINING THE RANKS OF INDIANA TRIAL JUDGES the family law cases. We had a breakfast meeting once a week with our office manager so we could stay connected.”
involvement in CASA. Taking the bench in 2009 has a familiar feel with a fresh perspective.
Coriden also became involved in the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program for Bartholomew and three surrounding counties. She served on the “Advocates for Children” Board of Directors—including as its President. Devoting her time to the group that advocates for abused and neglected children in state care gave her a new focus.
The exact opposite holds true for Maria Granger. The former deputy prosecutor is taking the bench in the newly created Floyd Superior Court Three— even the courtroom is brand new. Judge Granger explained, “The staff is settling in as equipment is being installed.”
Over time, the wounds of the defeat began to heal. “I stopped taking it so personally. Our practice was succeeding and I was staying involved in the community.” When election time came around again, Coriden realized she wanted to run. Instead of reliving the feelings associated with her previous defeat, she concentrated on how much she loved being a judge. “Every day is different and you are confronted with a new legal issue. The experience is mind expanding, so you have to stay fresh.” In 2008 she defeated the incumbent judge who had previously unseated her. Ten years after being appointed to the bench, Coriden became once again a Judge in Bartholomew County Superior Court after winning in the general election. As she returns to the bench, Judge Coriden brings new experiences as a seasoned practicing attorney. She is clearly more attuned to the challenges of lawyers than she was the first time she held office. She expects to draw from her time in private practice and from her
Judge Granger’s fourteen year legal career includes both private practice and time in the prosecutor’s office. Being called “Judge” still takes her by surprise. “The robe carries so much respect. You want to represent that dignity in the courtroom. I appreciate this opportunity” The opportunity comes with its challenges. Floyd Superior Court Three was created in part to balance the county caseload. Judge Granger is very pleased that her court will handle 100% of the protective order cases. She worked with domestic violence issues as a prosecutor and believes her previous experience will allow her to serve families in crisis better. “The family is the root of the community. We need to deal with these issues.” There is an upside to the struggles and problems that come from taking on a brand new court. Granger explained, “There is a real opportunity to move forward in an efficient manner. That is not as easily done when taking over an established courtroom.” Granger and her staff are very excited to be the first court in Floyd County to use the
new statewide case management system, Odyssey. “Of course there is a learning curve, but the Supreme Court staff has been here helping us and we are moving towards streamlining our efforts. We are very proud to be a pilot group trained on the new system.” All newly elected judges receive help and support from the Indiana Judicial Center and the Division of State Court Administration, including an extensive orientation program. Many also have guidance from long-time judges who have offered their expertise. As Maria Granger, Kathleen Tighe Coriden, and dozens of other newly elected judges step into their new roles, they arrive at the bench with unique perspectives that help shape their decision making process. Each one will work hard to make a difference and eventually leave an indelible and unique mark on the Indiana judicial system and in his/her community. By Kathryn Dolan, Public Information Officer, State Court Administration
See page 12 for a complete listing of new judges. courttimes
JAN/FEB 2009 11
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
Judges Leaving Bench & Newly Elected
Editor’s note: This past election was unprecedented in the number of judges elected to the bench. We extend many thanks to the Indiana Judicial Center for compiling this list. It does not include the names of judges who retired mid-term such as Judge Daniel Donahue in Clark Circuit Court or Judge Michael Cook in Marshall Circuit Court, or who left the bench prior to the May primary election such as Judge Wayne Lennington in Delaware Circuit Court #5. COURT
PATRICK R. MILLER
JAMES HEIMANN, RETIRED
LAPORTE SUPERIOR 3
KATHLEEN TIGHE CORIDEN
RODERICK MCGILLIVRAY, DEFEATED (GENERAL)
JENNIFER L. (EVANS) KOETHE
PAUL BALDONI, RETIRED
MADISON SUPERIOR 2
JACK BRICKMAN, RETIRED
ABE NAVARRO, DEFEATED (GENERAL)
G. GEORGE PANCOL LOUIS ROSENBERG 6
THEODORE SOSIN 7
CHARLES DEITER, DECEASED
CLARK SUPERIOR 2
CECILE BLAU, RETIRED
JOSEPH WEBER 1
PATRICIA GIFFORD, RETIRED
CLARK SUPERIOR 3
STEVEN FLEECE, RETIRED
MARC T. ROTHENBERG
KATHY SMITH, RETIRED
JOHN HAMMEL, NOT SLATED IN PRIMARY
DEARBORN SUPERIOR 1
JONATHAN N. CLEARY
G. MICHAEL WITTE, DEFEATED (PRIMARY)
JAMES B. OSBORN
GARY MILLER, NOT SLATED IN PRIMARY
MATTHEW D. BAILEY LINDA “RALU” WOLF 2
MICHAEL WILKE, RETIRED
KEN JOHNSON, NOT SLATED IN PRIMARY
DELAWARE CIRCUIT 3
ROBERT BARNET, RETIRED
DELAWARE CIRCUIT 5
THOMAS A. CANNON JR. CHRIS TEAGLE, DEFEATED (GENERAL)
MIAMI SUPERIOR 1
ELKHART SUPERIOR 5
DANIEL BANINA, DEFEATED (PRIMARY)
FLOYD SUPERIOR 3
CHARLES C. WICKS MARIA GRANGER 3
MIAMI SUPERIOR 2
DANIEL BANINA 8
FRANKLIN CIRCUIT 2
CLAY M. KELLERMAN 4
DAVID WELCH, RETIRED
ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER LEE
DOUGLAS MORTON, RETIRED
ELIZABETH ANN CURE
CHRISTINE TALLEY HASEMAN, DEFEATED (GENERAL)
GRANT SUPERIOR 3
NATALIE CONN, DEFEATED (PRIMARY)
CHARLES D. BRIDGES
ROBERT LOWE, RETIRED
JON A DARTT
WAYNE ROELL, RETIRED
DAVID HOLT, RETIRED
DENA BENHAM MARTIN PAUL FELIX 5
JUDITH PROFFITT, RETIRED
MAX C. LUDY, JR.
JOEL ROBERTS, RETIRED
ALISON T. FRAZIER
JAMES RIECKHOFF, RETIRED
ROBERT E. SPRINGER SWITZERLAND CIRCUIT W. GREGORY COY 9
THOMAS JOHNSON, RETIRED N/A
DON JOHNSON, RETIRED
FRED HOYING, RETIRED
TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR 1
GARY L. SMITH
JAMES FUNKE, DEFEATED (GENERAL)
SCOTT BOWERS, RETIRED
JOHNSON SUPERIOR 3
KIM VANVALER, RETIRED
VIGO SUPERIOR 5
MICHAEL R. RADER
LAPORTE SUPERIOR 2
STEVE KING, RETIRED
BARBARA BRUGNAUX, DEFEATED (PRIMARY)
FOOTNOTES 1 PREVIOUSLY JUDGE OF THE CLARKSVILLE TOWN COURT 2 PREVIOUSLY JUDGE OF THE MUNCIE CITY COURT 3 NEW COURT EFFECTIVE 1-1-09 4 NEW COURT EFFECTIVE 1-1-09 5 PREVIOUSLY JUDGE OF THE CARMEL CITY COURT
12 JAN/FEB 2009
6 PREVIOUSLY MAGISTRATE IN MARION SUPERIOR COURT (CRIMINAL DIVISION) 7 NUMBER OF MARION SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES INCREASES FROM 35 TO 36 EFFECTIVE 1-1-09 8 APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR DANIELS 9 NEW COURT EFFECTIVE 1-1-09. THE COMBINED JEFFERSON/SWITZERLAND CIRCUIT COURTS SPLIT INTO 2 COURTS EFFECTIVE 1/1/09; TED TODD REMAINS JUDGE OF THE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.
SPEAKER BAUER NAMES
TWO NEW INDIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER COMMISSION MEMBERS he Speaker of the House of Representatives, B. Patrick Bauer, appointed two new members to the Indiana Public Defender Commission in November 2008: Representative Vernon Smith and Representative Greg Steuerwald. Representative Vernon G. Smith was appointed to replace Phil Hoy, a former representative from Evansville who chose not to run for reelection. Representative Smith represents House District 14, which includes his hometown of Gary and portions of Lake Station and Hobart Township. In addition to being appointed a member of the Public Defender Commission, Representative Smith also serves on the House Education and the Courts and Criminal Code Committees. He has served on the Criminal Justice Institute Board of Trustees.
prove delivery of legal services by requiring compliance with the Indiana Public Defender Commission Standards. State law authorizes counties to receive reimbursements of 50% of expenditures for indigent defense services in capital cases and up to 40% in non-capital cases. The United States and Indiana Constitutions mandate these services.
Representative Greg Steuerwald, House District 40 in Hendricks County, was appointed to replace Amos Thomas, a representative from Brazil who was not reelected. Representative Steuerwald also serves on the House Committees on Government and Regulatory Reform and Courts and Criminal Code. Steuerwald is an attorney with Steuerwald, Zielinski & Witham, and resides in Danville, Indiana.
Currently, 50 Indiana counties qualify for reimbursement from the Public Defense Fund for non-capital public defense expenses. These counties comprise over 65% of Indiana's population. The Indiana Public Defender Commission meets four times during each fiscal year to audit and approve claims by the counties. For FY07-08, the Indiana legislature provided $14.5 million to reimburse counties for indigent defense services in capital and non-capital cases. The Commission was able to distribute $14,341,796 to counties. The appropriation for FY08-09 is $15.25 million and the Commission has distributed $11.5 million to date.
The Indiana legislature created a Public Defense Fund, which is administered by the Division of State Court Administration, to reimburse counties for the costs associated with indigent legal defense in capital and non-capital cases and to im-
All 92 Indiana counties are eligible for reimbursement of indigent defense costs in capital cases if they comply with standards in Criminal Rule 24 established by the Supreme Court. The Commission gives priority to requests for reimbursement of defense expenses in death penalty cases. From 1990 to 2008, the Public Defense Fund disbursed in excess of $9 million to Indiana counties to assist with their defense costs in capital cases.
By Deborah A. Neal, Staff Attorney, Public Defender Commission, State Court Administration
CLARIFICATION ON PUBLIC DEFENDER EXPENDITURES The Nov/Dec 2008 edition of the Indiana Court Times, in the "Highlights from the 2007 Indiana Judicial Service Report (JSR)" reported $15,896,397 as the total amount spent by counties on criminal indigent defense for 2007. This figure is an error, and the total amount spent should have been reported as $25,320,081. Even this latter figure, however, does not fully represent the total spent on criminal indigent defense services in Indiana. This is due to under-reporting of expenditures by some counties using independent public defender agencies and additional amounts spent by the state of Indiana through its Public Defender Fund. Adding these under-reported county expenses of $30,010,568 and the $15,000,000 paid from the state general fund, the total expenditure on criminal indigent defense services in Indiana was over $70,000,000 in 2007. If anyone has a question on this or any other subject relating to the Public Defender program in Indiana, please contact Deborah Neal at 317-232-2542 or by email at email@example.com.
JAN/FEB 2009 13
Jane Spencer Craney WE ARE STARTING A NEW FEATURE IN COURT TIMES CALLED “SIDEBAR” THAT WILL HIGHLIGHT UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL A MEMBER OF THE INDIANA JUDICIARY.
MORGAN SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
JANE SPENCER CRANEY IS OUR FIRST INTERVIEW. SHE WAS FIRST ELECTED AS JUDGE IN NOVEMBER 1990 AND IN THIS MOST RECENT ELECTION SHE WAS ELECTED TO HER FOURTH TERM ON THE BENCH. PRIOR TO BECOMING A JUDGE SHE SERVED TWO TERMS AS MORGAN COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST, AND LEAST, ABOUT BEING A TRIAL COURT JUDGE? PHOTO. Keith Rhoades. Courtesy of the Reporter-Times of Martinsville.
I enjoy being a trial judge because I am a "people person" and so far the most rewarding part of being a judge has been helping people overcome addiction problems. When someone comes to you later and says you helped them to start a clean and sober life, it's a pretty awesome feeling. My least favorite duty is ordering evictions, especially during the holidays and in the recent economy.
WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO STUDY LAW? My first conscious career choice (5th grade) was to be the first female astronaut only to discover (7th grade) that I had little scientific aptitude. My natural talents seemed to be in writing, public speaking and debate, and I loved to watch old Perry Mason reruns after school, so I decided on law as a career.
WHAT WAS YOUR MAJOR AT HANOVER COLLEGE?
Judge Craney and her dance partner, Craig Caudill of Greenwood, cut a rug at a local Dancing with the Stars competition.
14 JAN/FEB 2009
My major at Hanover was Political Science with a "minor" in Theatre. Hanover didn't have "minors" but I was a few credits short of a double major. My sister used to tell people I was going to be a dramatic politician.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE NOT A JUDGE? If I were not a Judge, I would probably be a political science/history teacher/professor or professional community volunteer. My family felt strongly that you give back to your community so I would volunteer more time to Habitat for Humanity and Rotary.
WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO DO WHEN YOU ARE NOT ON THE BENCH? When I am not on the bench I am usually dancing because I am totally addicted to ballroom dancing now. I also enjoy gardening, traveling, entertaining and reading. Many of my fellow Judges refer to me as the Hospitality Queen of the Indiana judiciary because I have catered several of the Hospitality Rooms at our conferences and the CCJ/COSCA conference a few years ago.
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE YOU MOST ADMIRE (BESIDES THE CHIEF JUSTICE)? I admire many people, including the Chief Justice, but Mother Teresa and Abraham Lincoln would probably top the list.
WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE BOOKS AND HAVE YOU READ ANY RECENTLY OR READING NOW THAT YOU REALLY LIKE? I love to read so picking a "favorite" would be difficult. I just finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird and will now start on John Grisham's The Appeal. Legal novels and historical biographies, such as David McCullough's John Adams, are my favorite types of books.
WHERE DID YOU GROW UP AND HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR CHILDHOOD? I grew up in North Manchester, Indiana (Wabash County), my Mother's hometown. My childhood was wonderful— growing up in a small college town has many advantages including a very good
school system and cultural events. Both of my parents were aficionados of musical theatre/theatre so we attended many performances at Manchester College and the Wagon Wheel Playhouse, a summer stock theatre company in Warsaw, Indiana. We also traveled a great deal during my youth.
WHEN AND HOW DID YOU DEVELOP YOUR INTEREST IN TRAVEL? My Father was a big believer in the educational value of travel based on something a visiting professor from Germany said to him. (It's an interesting story that I love to tell.) That, coupled with the fact that he was from Vermont, gave me the opportunity to travel a great deal in the US, Canada, Mexico and Europe before I even graduated from high school. I was an exchange student to the Netherlands for Youth for Understanding between my Junior and Senior year in high school and have returned several times to visit my Dutch family and still have contact with them. I also studied in France and Switzerland during college. My husband and I have hosted Rotary exchange students from Holland and France. We also make sure other exchange students to Martinsville get to see a bit of the US when we take them on our travels. My husband is an airline pilot for American Airlines so I still get to travel when I can.
DO YOU HAVE A FAVORITE QUOTE? My two favorite quotes are from the British orator, philosopher and politician, Edmund Burke, about responsibility, and an English barrister, Sir Edward Hall, about the similarities between the theatre and courtroom advocacy. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke
“My profession and that of an actor are somewhat alike, except that I have no scenes to help me, and no words are written for me to say. There is no curtain. But out of a vivid, living dream of someone else’s life, I create an atmosphere and that …that is advocacy.” Sir Edward Marshall Hall
WHEN AND WHY DID YOU TAKE UP DANCING? My husband and I started lessons at Arthur Murray 3 years ago. We were so bad at dancing at our first son's wedding that we HAD to get better for the second son's wedding! I just graduated from Bronze Four (there are 4 levels) into Silver One (which also has 4 levels.)
WHAT IS ON YOUR LIFE LIST AND HOW MANY ITEMS DO YOU HAVE LEFT TO CHECK OFF? As far as a Life List, I am still adding to it, but it definitely includes traveling around the world and to each continent. The Dancing with the Stars Preshow was on the list for the last 3 years. Check!
WHERE IS YOUR FAVORITE VACATION SPOT? My favorite vacation spot is my family's cabin in the woods near Cadillac, Michigan.
WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE MEAL/ RECIPE/RESTAURANT? There was a hotel in my Mother's family for over a hundred years so I actually grew up in the kitchen. I have too many favorite foods and restaurants to choose just one. Chocolate would probably be involved! My favorite recipe would probably be my Hot Crab Dip.
By James F. Maguire, Staff Attorney, State Court Administration
JAN/FEB 2009 15
BITS & BY TES
GETTING THE SHOW ON THE ROAD JTAC’S SPEEDY PROJECT TO HELP DCS COMPLY WITH HEA 1001
In 2008, the Indiana General Assembly passed, and Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law, HEA 1001, a bill designed to provide property tax relief that also made sweeping changes to how payments are processed for juvenile services throughout the state. There have been several articles in the Indiana Court Times reporting on the effects of this bill on Indiana’s courts and probation departments. But there is another, behind-the-scenes story about how the agencies involved have managed to comply with the law, how separate branches of government collaborated, and the crucial role JTAC has played in the effort. THE PROBLEM. House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1001 was as an effort to relieve the property tax burden on Indiana homeowners, but for Indiana’s courts and the Department of Child Services (DCS), it was a directive to make major changes in the processing of payments for juvenile services and placements. Under the old system, a county’s property tax included a family and children’s fee to pay for the juvenile services that were not reimbursed under federal law. Title IV-E, under the Social Security Act, establishes Federal-State programs for foster care, adoption assistance, and independent living. Probation officers collected and delivered information —on paper forms—about the children being served to local DCS caseworkers for data entry into the Indiana Child Welfare
16 JAN/FEB 2009
Information System (ICWIS). Regional coordinators at DCS approved or denied services that counties paid for from local funds and processed any eligible Title IV-E reimbursements. Counties often waited months for the reimbursement of those funds. And, because the paper process was so burdensome, Title IV-E eligible children might pass through the system without their cases ever being processed for reimbursement from the Federal government. This meant lost revenue for the counties. Under HEA 1001, probation officers would still collect information about each child, and DCS would still process the Title IV-E reimbursements. But under the new plan, DCS has an additional responsibility of processing the payments to the service providers. These payments are now made from the state general fund, since the law eliminates the local
family and children’s levy on property taxes. DCS needed a way for probation officers to be able to enter the children’s information directly into ICWIS in order to avoid hiring additional case workers or contracting with a private company to handle this extra burden. That is where the road got a little bumpy. Under ICWIS, a federally-provided program, only state employees had direct access, and local probation officers were not eligible. The challenge for DCS was to find a way for probation officers to interface with ICWIS without directly accessing it. THE SOLUTION. In April, a month after HEA 1001 was signed, representatives from DCS met with staff from the Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC)
court staff. It already interfaced with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Indiana State Police, and other executive branch agencies. So at Jane’s suggestion, Director Payne decided to get in touch with JTAC. It was about this time that Mary DePrez, JTAC’s Director, was driving to Alabama with her family for a vacation. There they were, trucking along a southbound highway, when her phone rang. And it was an urgent call, because in less than five months, HEA 1001 would become effective. Mary assured Director Payne that JTAC could make this project a priority. In order to succeed, JTAC and DCS had to begin the planning process immediately.
PHOTO. Galina Barskaya.
section to discuss language changes on court forms and orders to comply with federal reimbursement rules. At the time, they discussed the possible use of the Supreme Court’s Odyssey trial court case management system as an interface to ICWIS. However, because Odyssey was not going to be available statewide by January 1, it wouldn’t serve the immediate needs of the probation officers or DCS caseworkers. The leadership at DCS explored several options over the following months looking for an ideal solution. In late summer, James Payne, DCS Director and former Marion County Juvenile Court Judge, met with Jane Seigel, Executive Director of the Indiana Judicial Center. They discussed HEA 1001 and the challenges for DCS. Jane Seigel told Director Payne about INcite, JTAC’s secure data sharing portal that was being used by judges and
By September, the project to develop an interface between INcite and ICWIS kicked into high gear. JTAC assigned Mark Harvey, a new employee and former probation officer, to manage the project, and Eric Burris, a JTAC contractor, to make sure the solution would work in the field. JTAC software developer Dylan Vester had recently created an entirely new framework for INcite. It took advantage of the latest technologies and made development of web applications like the one planned for DCS much faster than earlier INcite projects. And Jason Butera, a Deputy MIS Director at JTAC, developed the software application to interface with ICWIS using the new framework. Just as JTAC had to build a new application, DCS had to scramble their own technology staff to update ICWIS and make the interface possible. The January 1 deadline was met with a diligent, inter-branch team effort. In four months, JTAC was able to design, develop, test, revise, retest, and deploy a critical web application utilizing precious and limited resources. The application exchanges data with an existing system, requires that data to be kept secure over an Internet connection, and is relied on by hundreds of users across the state. LIFE AFTER INCITE. Now that HEA 1001 is in effect, and JTAC has launched this interface with ICWIS, processing juvenile services bills and Title IV-E eligibility is much more streamlined.
Since the initial launch of the new software, nearly 300 users have gained access to the system and more than 200 cases have been entered. In the ten counties that use the Quest juvenile case management system, probation officers are using its new functionality to accomplish essentially the same tasks, but any county has the option to use INcite at no cost. The benefits of this new INcite application may be difficult to quantify right away, but they commingle with the benefits of HEA 1001. One way to explain the relationship is with this analogy: In response to the people, the state legislature and the governor gave a directive that we all meet at a particular destination. HEA 1001 is the road, and the new INcite application is one of the vehicles that will help take us there. HEA 1001 provides property tax relief by shifting the burden of payment for juvenile services from the county to the state. But because of the newly created electronic method of reporting information, Title IV-E reimbursements to the counties will arrive quicker than under the old system. Probation officers will also save time through better organization of the information they gather. They could potentially use the newly found time to discover unidentified Title IV-E eligible children, which means less overall cost to the state. Chief Justice Shepard said in his 2009 State of the Judiciary: The internal design of this system saved time and money, but more to the point it will permit services and placement for threatened or troubled children more quickly and more effectively. And it will allow Indiana to maximize the amount of federal reimbursement for providing services to children. Indiana has over time left tens of millions of dollars on the sidewalk. No more!
By Lindsey Borschel, Web Coordinator, JTAC, State Court Administration
JAN/FEB 2009 17
B RENDA' S B A ILI W ICK
BEING A JUDGE IN THE BACK OFFICE A
judge makes decisions within the confines of the law, trusting his/her instincts, and almost always in solitude. It requires good intellect and a strong and caring heart to administer justice. When we think of judges, we picture a wise and courageous leader, clad in a robe, making decisions while sitting on the bench. Yet, even a fair, just and wise judge will be poorly serving the community and justice if the court’s back office is not properly managed. The disciplinary cases against judges over the last several years include a significant number of the cases involving the administrative functions of the court. Judicial misconduct was alleged in cases concerning judicial impropriety involving relationship with staff members, while other cases involve misconduct resulting from poor office management. A judge will not be able to discern truth and render a proper decision if a pleading is never considered because it is buried in a folder. The National Center for State Courts offers an on-line course conducted by Daniel H. Straub, Ph.D., concerning court staff management for first-time supervisors. If a Judge is interested in taking this course, he/she should go to the Supreme Court website at courts.IN.gov/center and click on “Supreme Court Scholarship Program Application for Judges” on the right hand side of the screen. The course emphasizes that all jobs are important, including filing papers for the court. The court must properly manage the office paper flow in order to review pleadings, hear arguments, and issue an order. Each judge should ask some questions in reviewing the court’s office management. A few that should be answered are: Do all employees know their importance to the goal of dispensing justice? Do all employees understand that they are the face of the court to the public? 18 JAN/FEB 2009
Do all employees embrace the philosophy that they are there to serve the attorneys, parties, and witnesses coming before the court?
What is your method for assuring that there are timely rulings on motions and processing of cases? Do all your employees know that they have a role in insuring that justice is not delayed?
Do all employees realize that their job often includes assisting individuals who are under great personal stress?
Are you demanding the highest standards of performance from each member of your court staff, or letting poor performance slide because you don’t want to deal with it?
Do all employees know what you want to hear, need to hear, and cannot hear? And for matters that you cannot hear, do all employees know how to handle the communication so the problem is actually addressed? Do all employees know to inform you if anyone is making repeated calls on a motion and the docket shows that a ruling has not been made? Do all employees know what to do if a motion is presented and the file-folder for that case cannot be found? Have you ever asked for a file and your staff was not able to retrieve it immediately for you? If so, why? What procedure is there to make sure that no file remains buried in a basket for months?
In addition, having positive answers to the following questions will help insure a fully operational court: How does your staff determine who may have direct access to you? Do all employees know who to approach if there is a problem or concern? Are there any folders, files or boxes of loose papers anywhere in the court offices? Why?
Are the best employees given the most work, while the poorest performing employees are rewarded with fewer tasks? Are you addressing employee absenteeism issues when they occur and are you handling these issues consistently?
It is remarkable and gratifying that we have qualified, caring individuals willing and able to perform the noble tasks of a judge. Managing the office and employees of the court may seem petty compared to sitting behind the bench and determining legal issues. However, it is an illusion that office management is petty. While each judge has been trained through law school and law practice to do the job in the courtroom, law school curriculum rarely, if ever, includes office management training. Few attorneys in their practice have had to spend much time in managing staff. Yet when an attorney becomes a judge, office management becomes an important part of the duties. If you need assistance, I am available to assist you and there are also resources through the Indiana Judicial Center and the National Center for State Courts. Call on us.
By Brenda Rodeheffer Employment Law Services, State Court Administration Trial courts can seek advice on employment law issues by contacting Brenda Rodeheffer directly at (317) 2343936 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
SP OTLIGHT This is a new feature in the Indiana Court Times that spotlights people who work in the Indiana Court system. We are reaching out to our readers to provide us with material to use in this continuing column. Please send information to email@example.com.
DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE G. MICHAEL WITTE (now Senior Judge) was the 2008 recipient of the Indiana University Asian Alumni Association’s Distinguished Asian Pacific American Alumni Award. He received the Franklin N. Flaschner Award, given to the outstanding judge in the nation who presides in a court of limited jurisdiction, from the American Bar Association National Conference of Specialized Court Judges. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation appointed him in 2007 to the Congressional task force on Commercial Driver’s Licensing. Judge Witte was recently appointed Judicial Outreach Liaison for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Region 5 which covers six Midwestern states. LAKE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE THOMAS STEFANIAK, JR., was named Judge of the Year for 2008 by the Indiana Correctional Association.
COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE JAMES S. KIRSCH was awarded the Paul H. Buchanan Jr. Award of Excellence by the Indianapolis Bar Association/Indianapolis Bar Foundation at a recognition luncheon held on November 20, 2008. MARION SUPERIOR JUDGE ROBERT ALTICE became presiding judge of the court system for a two-year term. Judges Gerald Zore, Ted Sosin and Tanya Walton Pratt are also serving on the executive committee. ROBERT RATH, an attorney with an MBA degree, is the new Director of Appellate Court Technology for State Court Administration and will be leading the Supreme Court’s IT Department. Bob has over twenty years of IT leadership experience, working on major programs for Thomson Inc. and Sara Lee, in Indianapolis and Mexico. He may be contacted in the STAD offices by phone at 317- 234-6529 and by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. PHOTO. Lindsey Borschel.
SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE
THANKS ATTORNEY MEMBER FOR A JOB WELL DONE
AND WELCOMES NEW MEMBER he Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure expressed its great appreciation to Mary Nold Larimore whose term on the Committee ended after nearly ten years of service. Larimore, an Indianapolis attorney and partner with the firm of Ice Miller, was appointed to the Committee in January 1999. Chief Justice Shepard is grateful for her service and said, “Mary has dedicated many long hours to this Committee. It is obvious that she is committed to serving our legal system and her fellow attorneys by making sure Indiana has clear and understandable rules. She left her mark of stellar professionalism by her work in shaping numerous rules ranging from a new set of Appellate and Jury Rules to Rules of Evidence regarding electronic discovery.”
The Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure was created by the Court to conduct a continuous study of the Indiana Rules of Procedure and other rules as directed by the Court. The Committee is charged with reporting to the Court recommendations and proposed amendments to promote simplicity in procedure, just determination of litigation, and elimination of unjustified expense and delay. Larimore called her work on the Committee “a true labor of love,” saying her service proved to be one of the greatest honors of her career. “It gave me the opportunity to interact with some of the finest lawyers in the State of Indiana and listen and learn from their many different perspectives. I am proud of the fact that we brought
Justice Brent Dickson presented attorney Mary Nold Larimore with an award for ten years of services to the Rules Committee.
the bench and bar together on many different initiatives, from the attorney surrogate rule to the adoption of e-discovery rules. The insight I have gained from the opportunity to work with the Court has been invaluable and I am grateful that they entrusted me with this role.” The Supreme Court named Maggie L. Smith as Larimore’s replacement. Smith’s term begins January 1, 2009 and expires June 30, 2014. She serves as counsel to Frost Brown Todd, formerly Locke Reynolds. She is married to Kevin Smith, Supreme Court Administrator and Clerk of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court. They have two children and live in the Indianapolis area.
JAN/FEB 2009 19
KEEP UP-TO-DATE Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204
with legislation before the Indiana General Assembly
SAVE A TREE STAY INFORMED
EDITORIAL BOARD Lilia G. Judson, Publisher Executive Director, State Court Admin. David J. Remondini, Managing Editor Chief Deputy Executive Director, State Court Admin. James F. Maguire, Editor Staff Attorney, State Court Admin. Lindsey Borschel, Publication Designer Web Coordinator, State Court Admin./JTAC Deborah Guthrie-Jones, Distribution Coordinator Administrative Assistant, State Court Admin.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE BLOG Access the blog at
MISSION Our goal is to foster communications, respond to concerns, and contribute to the spirit and pride that encompasses the work of all members of the judiciary around the state. We welcome your comments, suggestions and news. If you have an article, advertisements, announcement, or particular issue you would like to see in our publication, please contact us by mail or email at email@example.com.
If you would like to help save a tree and still stay informed, you may receive the Indiana Court Times via email, or you can access our website: courts.IN.gov/admin (click on â€œPublicationsâ€?). To have your name removed from our hardcopy mailing list, contact Deborah Guthrie-Jones at firstname.lastname@example.org.
CONTRIBUTORS Hon. Randall T. Shepard Chief Justice, Indiana Supreme Court Hon. Barbara Arnold Harcourt Senior Judge, Indiana Judicial Center Aaron M. Henderson Chief Probation Officer, Blackford County Deb Perry Director of Community Corrections, Blackford County James Walker Director of Trial Court Management State Court Administration James F. Maguire Staff Attorney, State Court Administration Deborah A. Neal Staff Attorney, Indiana Public Defender Commission State Court Administration Brenda Rodeheffer Employment Law Services, State Court Administration Kathryn Dolan Public Information Officer, State Court Administration
PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERS
Lindsey Borschel Web Coordinator, JTAC
This newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference. Issues are also available online at:
20 JAN/FEB 2009