Indiana Court Times 20.2

Issue 20.2 MAR/APR 2011

Indiana Supreme Court Legal His-tory Lecture celebrating Black History Month.

G. Michael Witte, Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission Ex-ecutive Secretary, is the ABA Judicial Division Chair. He explained, “We have a number of similar events taking place across the country. The program is designed to initiate discussion and reflection on the role of fair and impar-tial courts in our society. It is a method of reconnecting the public with the concept of three co-equal independent branches of government.”

Martin University student, LaTosha Williams, attended the February

15, 2011 Indiana Supreme Court spon-sored event at her university with un-answered questions about the judicial branch of government. “Before today, I was curious about judicial responsibili-ties and activities. I thought that judges probably sit in their courtrooms every day and make decisions,” she explained.

Williams joined more than 200 people including students, faculty, attorneys and community members for a two-part program about the courts. The first part, “The Least Understood Branch,” was co-sponsored by the Indi-ana Supreme Court and the American Bar Association (ABA) Judicial Divi-sion. The second part, a con-tinuing legal education seminar, was an

Black History Celebration atMartin UniversitySupreme Court sponsors two-part educational program

By ReBecca TayloR | communicaTions assisTanT, sTaTe couRT adminisTRaTion

2 MAR/APR 2011 courttimes

CONTENTS

Black History Celebration at Martin University: Supreme Court sponsors two-part educational program ........2

Bits & Bytes Indiana's New Risk Assessment Tools: What You Should Know ..........5

Best Practices: What to do with the Unprepared Attorney ......................8

Fostering Futures: A Program for Older Foster Youth ...........................9

CLeRK's CoRneR Clerk Penny Bogan .......................10

sPotLiGHt Judge Robb Selected to be Member of American Law Institute .............11

siDeBAR Hon. Judith A. Stewart ..................12

AsK ADRienne Judicial Hiring and Administrative Appointments Revisited ...............14

The centerpiece of the Least Under-stood Branch program was a panel dis-cussion on the topic of judicial indepen-dence, moderated by Marion County Superior Court Judge David J. Dreyer. Panelists included Federal Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker, US District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Profes-sor John Hill of the Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis, and Dan Drew, Dean of the School of Journalism at Indiana University—Purdue Univer-sity Indianapolis.

The panel discussion focused on the role of courts in a democracy and some of the obstacles facing the judicial branch. The areas included judges’ du-ties, interpretation of the law through case decisions, and the impact of the media and politics on the judiciary. “I learned that judges do much more than simply preside over a trial. They spend a lot of time researching, reading and dealing with many matters beyond the courtroom,” said Williams.

The discussion examined the implica-tions of judges in a political and media-influenced society. Judge Barker stated, “Learning to live with public criticism is a part of a judge’s job. Although it may sometimes entail personally unpalatable results, our job is to apply the law to the case.” Judge Barker’s explanation initi-ated a conversation about media influ-ence on public opinion. “The media is imperative to an understanding of what is happening in the courts,” explained Dean Dan Drew. “Without media cov-erage, people will likely not know about these important matters; however, their portrayal of events can influence opin-ions,” said Drew. The panel consensus was that, because government operates within a system of checks and balances, the role of the judiciary is unique; more than the other two branches, judges must remain impervious to factors beyond the facts and law of a particular case in deciding the controversy before them. “The participants were really be-ginning to contemplate the roles of the court. They learned about what judges do and the challenges they face every

day. Judge Barker illustrated the dif-ficult task judges have to interpret the law in a society where external sources like media and politics are prevalent,” said Judge Dreyer.

After a short break, the program transi-tioned into a Continuing Legal Educa-tion seminar honoring Black History Month. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert D. Rucker and Indianapolis lawyer Roderick Morgan, a partner at the firm of Bingham McHale, served as keynote speakers.

Justice Rucker discussed his personal judicial journey, the judicial selec-tion process, and the operation of the

Indiana Supreme Court. Justice Rucker explained the role of the Judicial Nominating Commission in choosing Supreme Court justices and the process of becoming a justice. Justice Rucker is only the second African-American to serve on Indiana’s state supreme court. “I had no idea that there were so many factors involved in selecting a Supreme Court justice,” said Williams, who attended both the panel discussion and the black history celebration lec-tures. “The accomplishments of Justice Rucker are honorable and inspiring and served as a strong foundation for his selection as a justice on the Indiana Supreme Court,” observed Williams.

In the question and answer session, Justice Rucker spoke about the difficult task of enforcing laws while ensuring justice. He noted that, “Justice implies ‘rightness’ but the law does not always allow for flexibility. We must oper-ate within the boundaries of the law. Justice is a goal we try to reach but are sometimes hampered by the law.” He

cover and article Photos. Kathryn dolan.

"Ithought that judges

probably sit in their courtrooms every day and make decisions.

Above: Martin University criminal justice student Jasmine Dillard (far right) with other students and community members at the Least Understood Branch panel discussion.

on the Cover: Students (pictured from left to right) Maina Jackson (biology), Valerie Collier (chemistry), and Latosha Williams (chemistry) participated in the Least Understood Branch program after their classes.

courttimes MAR/APR 2011 3

conTinued on neXT PaGe

cited a former Indiana Supreme Court justice who ruled in favor of enforcing capital punishment, but as a Quaker was morally opposed to the death penalty. “It is important that we make distinctions between legality and justice. We think about fairness every step of the way,” said Justice Rucker.

Following Justice Rucker’s presenta-tion, Indianapolis attorney and past President of the Indiana State Bar As-sociation Roderick Morgan spoke about the truly remarkable life and career of John Morton Finney, an Indianapolis African American lawyer admitted to the bar in 1935. Mr. Finney practiced law until age 107. During his lifetime, he earned eleven bachelor’s degrees, five law degrees and was fluent in six languages. At the time of his death in 1998, Morton-Finney was the last sur-viving member of the Buffalo Soldiers, a World War I era black Army unit. Before practicing law, Morton-Finney spent many years as a teacher, depart-ment head, and administrator in the Indianapolis Public School system, pri-marily at Crispus Attucks High School. A few attendees volunteered that they, or their siblings, were former students of Morton Finney and described him a remarkable role model and motivator. The seminar concluded with a discus-sion about Mr. Finney, segregation, and the importance of celebrating Black History in Indiana.

Dr. Elizabeth R. Osborn, the Indiana Supreme Court’s Director of Courts in the Classroom, helped to organize the CLE portion of the program. She pointed to the different backgrounds of those in attendance, “Attorneys received CLE credit, but they were not the only group represented. The audience was also filled with students, community members and Martin University faculty representing a wide variety of back-grounds and viewpoints. The Indiana Supreme Court strives to achieve this result in all of our programs because

it represents the diversity in our state. Our goal is to make the courts better understood by all Hoosiers.”

Martin University Acting President Dr. Charlotte Westerhaus-Renfrow is proud that the school was asked to host this event. “We are certainly appreciative for the community outreach and assist-ing in helping people better understand and relate to the judicial branch of government. The students felt in touch and up close and personal with the ju-diciary. The event not only reached out to the community, but also encouraged student participation, which is a great thing,” she said.

Judge Dreyer was also pleased with the program’s successful outcome, “I believe we accomplished our mission of getting people to think about the Courts in our community. The participants will be well prepared to participate in future discussions with a new appreciation for the role of our courts.”

The participants also recognized the value of educational events concerning the judiciary. “The program had a great turnout. It really explored the details about what goes on at the Court. I learned about more opportunities in the Criminal Justice field and ways to get involved and explore the judicial branch,” said Williams. She reflected on her experience and offered some advice for future court outreach. “The Indiana Supreme Court should continue to provide opportunities like this so people can actually learn and experience the importance of the Court during Black History Month,” said Williams.

“We need to listen and be responsive to the needs of the public,” said Judge Dreyer. This program demonstrated that Hoosiers are willing to get involved in the Court and better understand its role in their lives. The Indiana Supreme Court will continue to recognize the importance of celebrating our state’s his-tory while reaching out to interested citi-zens across our state through programs like the Least Understood Branch.

conTinued FRom PReVious PaGe

Supreme Court Justice Robert Rucker talks about how he became an Indiana Supreme Court justice.


Milestone Marked in Evidence-Based Sentencing PracticesThe implementation of new risk/needs assessment systems for Indiana’s juvenile and criminal justice systems marked an important milestone during 2010-2011. These tools are designed to provide Indiana’s courts with information about an offender’s potential risks and needs, allowing trial courts to provide appropriate sentences, supervision and treatment services. The risk assessment tools enhance efforts to rehabilitate of-fenders, reduce recidivism, and increase public safety. Many stakeholders were involved in developing these tools for use in Indiana. This article will answer these questions: What are risk/needs assessment tools? Who was involved in their adoption for use in Indiana? Who will use these tools? How will they work?

In Indiana, as well as nationally, there has been a growing acceptance and use of evidence-based practices in sentenc-ing adult and juvenile offenders. The foundation for implementing these practices requires the use of validated, actuarial risk assessment instruments. The term evidence-based practices refers to the use of empirical data derived through scientific research from juve-nile and criminal justice systems which identify factors about an offender that provide an empirical assessment of the offender’s likelihood to reoffend and techniques and programs that have been proven effective in reducing such

risks. Risk assessment instruments that focus on both risk and need factors can assist in creating proper supervision plans and appropriate service referrals by the supervising agency, including probation, parole, community correc-tions, problem-solving courts, Court Alcohol & Drug programs, and the Indiana Department of Correction.

Risk Assessment Task ForceSupervising agencies in Indiana have used a variety of risk assessment tools for several years. In 2006, key stakeholders formed the Risk Assessment Task Force, staffed by the Indiana Judicial Center, to promote a uniform and consistent risk assessment process across the relevant supervising agencies as a part of the continuing effort to implement evidence-based practices in Indiana. This task force includes representatives from the supervising agencies, a member of the judiciary, and staff of the Judicial Automation and Technology Committee (JTAC) with the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration. It continues to exercise oversight for this project.

Indiana adopts IYAS and IRASIn 2008, the task force recommended that Indiana adopt two systems devel-oped by the University of Cincinnati: the Indiana Youth Assessment System

(IYAS) for juveniles and the Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) for adults. These systems are designed to be used at key stages in the criminal justice process to help guide decisions, ascertain the ap-propriate allocation of resources and pro-grams, measure changes in an offender’s risk and need factors during supervision, and improve public safety.

Following the recommendation to adopt the IYAS and IRAS, the task force began developing implementation policies for the assessment instruments. A key policy is that individuals who adminis-ter the assessments must be certified, which requires the completion of two-day training and a certification test. Also, there are minimum requirements for the administration of the assessments and the completion of case plans.

The Center for Criminal Justice Re-search at the University of Cincinnati has been integral in the development of a core group of individuals who con-duct the certification training as well as development of the materials used in the training. Beginning in 2010 to the present, 740 juvenile system staff have attended 34 juvenile trainings, and 1708 adult system staff have attended 59 adult trainings conducted across the state. Supervising agencies began using the IYAS on October 1, 2010, and the IRAS on January 1, 2011.

indiana's new Risk Assessment tools: WhaT you should KnoW

BY MIChELLE GooDMAn | STAFF ATToRnEY, InDIAnA JUDICIAL CEnTERAnD LISA ThoMPSon | PRoBATIon SUBJECT MATTER ExPERT, STATE CoURT ADMInISTRATIon / JTAC

conTinued on neXT PaGe


BITS & BYTES

For more information about IYAS and IRAS, contact Michelle Goodman at [email protected] or (317) 232-1313.

For more information about JTAC's Risk Assessment tool available on Incite, contact Lisa Thompson at [email protected] or (317) 234-6586.

The Risk Assessment ProcessThe assessment process includes: (1) a semi-structured interview with the offender, (2) a file review, and (3) the gathering of necessary collateral infor-mation. It is not just one item or factor that makes someone more or less likely to re-offend, but it is the combination of multiple factors in multiple areas. Factors in the assessment—referred to as domains—are the offender’s:

history with the justice system,•

employment and education,•

family and social support,•

substance abuse and mental health,•

peers, and •

attitudes and behavioral patterns.•

The assessment results provide an overall risk level and a risk level for each domain. Evidence-based practices research indicates that the most effec-tive use of limited resources is to target individuals with high or moderate risk and need factors for more intensive supervision and services. These results assist the supervising agency in identify-ing the appropriate types of service or interventions needed to help reduce the individual’s risk for re-offense. This identification forms the basis of an indi-vidualized case plan outlining the goals and objectives for each need area and the interventions required to address those needs.

Indiana Supreme Court Decision Affirms Use of Risk Assessment ToolsIn addition to being one of the first states to implement a system-wide risk assessment instrument, Indiana has also produced an important Supreme Court decision analyzing and affirming the use of such instruments. In June 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court decided Malen-chik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564, which focuses on the proper use of evidence-based assessment results. In writing the unanimous decision for the Court, Jus-tice Brent Dickson confirmed that when sentencing individuals, judges could con-sider results of assessments conducted by the county probation department, Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) and Substance Abuse Subtle Screening In-ventory (SASSI). The Court provided the framework necessary to assist trial courts in appropriately using the results of risk and need assessment instruments:

it is clear that neither lsi-R nor the sassi are intended nor recommend-ed to substitute for the judicial func-tion of determining the length of sen-tence appropriate for each offender. But such evidence-based assess-ment instruments can be significant sources of valuable information for judicial consideration in deciding whether to suspend all or part of a sentence, how to design a probation program for the offender, whether to assign an offender to alternative treatment facilities or programs, and other such corollary sentencing mat-ters. id. at 573.

The Court stated that these instru-ments provide information based on extensive research and assist courts in crafting individualized sentencing schemes with a maximum potential for reformation consistent with Article I, Section 18 of the Indiana Constitution, which emphasizes the foundational importance of reformation as a goal of our penal code. The Court held that the assessment results are not intended to serve as aggravating or mitigating circumstances nor determine the gross length of a sentence, but can be used in formulating the manner in which a sentence is to be served. By using in-struments such as the IRAS and IYAS, the sentencing judge has the ability to formulate and enforce an acceptable in-dividualized case plan, which can assist in the offender’s rehabilitation.

JTAC, Incite, and Risk Assessment ToolsCreating an automated process for com-pleting these assessments was another phase of the project implementation. Representatives from probation, com-munity corrections, the Indiana Depart-ment of Correction, and the Indiana Judicial Center provided guidance to the JTAC staff in the development of electronic means for scoring and storing the results to the risk assessment tools. The automation of the risk assessment instrument was funded through a federal grant. The main objectives behind the development of the automated Risk As-sessment Application were: (1) improve communication between criminal justice agencies, (2) contribute to continuity of services for offenders, and (3) store statewide aggregate data needed for re-validation of the tools. The Risk Assess-ment Application is part of the Indiana Supreme Court INcite framework which provides the pathway for numerous other automated applications used by the courts and state agencies.

After an individual user is certified, JTAC staff provides a password which will grant the user access to the INcite Risk Assessment Application. When an interview with an offender has been

conTinued FRom PReVious PaGe


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

completed, the user will sign into the INcite application and answer the risk assessment questions based on informa-tion gathered. The offender informa-tion, risk assessment answers, specific domain scores, and overall assessment scores are stored in the system for future reference. Once that offender progresses to the next stage of the juvenile or criminal justice system, and another risk assessment is warranted, another user will be able to utilize the existing of-fender information and refer back to the previously completed risk assessment.

Users of the Risk Assessment Applica-tion receive a number of benefits:

The system and its maintenance •are free to all agencies.

Criminal justice agencies using the •risk assessment tools now have a single electronic means for scoring.

Important offender information is •easily shared among users, result-ing in improved communication.

Each entity using the application •can build on existing information to gain the knowledge needed for appropriate offender supervi-sion, rather than completing a new assessment at each phase of the system.

There is a reduction in duplication •of work because system interfaces allow the transfer of risk assess-ment details from the Risk Assess-ment Application to an agency’s local case management system.

Supervisors or administrators of the •Risk Assessment Application have the ability to analyze aggregate data for their agency and examine program effectiveness on reducing recidivism.

Since all offender data throughout •the state is stored in one location, the data collection process neces-sary for periodic review and revali-dation of the tools will be greatly simplified.

Users have immediate access to •the most recent versions, docu-ments, and instructions if any part of the IYAS or IRAS is modified after a revalidation period.

Indiana now has the most current risk assessment tools because of the work of the Risk Assessment Task Force in conjunction with the Probation Of-ficers Advisory Board, the Judicial Conference’s Probation Committee, the Judicial Conference Board of Direc-tors, the Indiana Judicial Center, the Department of Correction, State Court Administration’s JTAC staff, and our trainers.

Summit on Evidence-Based Practices scheduled for May 19, 2011 in IndianapolisJudges, prosecutors, public defenders, chief probation officers, and community correction directors are invited to par-ticipate in a Summit on Evidence-Based Practices and Risk Assessment on May 19th in Indianapolis to learn more about how these principles and tools can im-prove youth and offender management in your community.

ExAMPLE FRoM InCITE. JTAC's Risk Assessment tool includes departmental summary charts like the one above, which aggregates data for one risk tool performed on many offenders by one agency over a specified time period. The chart highlights the areas that most contribute to recidivism for the agency's overall offender population and can assist a director or chief probation officer to determine programming needs and allocation of departmental resources.


One way judges can increase courtroom productivity is to assure that attor-

neys are prepared when they come into court. Facing unprepared attorneys

is a concern for judges in courts all across the state. Many times judges

reserve court time only to discover that the attorneys are not prepared and

request a last-minute continuance. Sometimes when attorneys begin trying the case,

the judge realizes that one (or both) does not understand the burden of proof or what

standard the judge will use to make a finding. That is when the judge wonders if the

hearing is going to be a waste of time and effort.

If a case is scheduled for one-half day or more, there should be a pre-trial conference date for the attorneys only to meet with the judge to discuss the case. At that meeting a judge should insist that the attorneys understand the burden of proof, which party bears the burden, and what relief the parties are seeking. The attorneys should know all important recent developments in that particular area of the law, including recent cases or statutory changes.

For example, if an attorney asks for hearing on behalf of a custodial parent seeking to relocate with a child, the court could hold a very productive pre-trial conference. There have been recent statutory changes that may be unknown

[Editor's note: This is the third in a series of four articles from the Ethics and Professionalism Com-

mittee of the Indiana Judicial Conference. The author thanks and acknowledges the contri-

butions of those who attended the session at the September, 2010 Judicial Conference in

Indianapolis and contributed to the “Best Practices” suggestions related here.]

to parents and even to some attorneys, especially those who don’t practice fam-ily law on a regular basis. There are also a few important cases that a judge could bring to the attention of trial counsel.

If attorneys seem uncertain as to the law, a judge should require Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law before the hearing. A judge should direct the attorneys to include relevant citations to statutes, cases, and other authority that apply to the issues being litigated. This will force the attorneys to do their research before trying the case.

Some judges require attorneys to file Proposed Findings of Fact before every hearing of any significant length, even

if they are experienced and knowledge-able attorneys. This will ensure that the attorneys are prepared and will use the allocated court time more efficiently.

What should you do if you are trying a case and one attorney is prepared and the other is not? As judge, you probably cannot do anything to protect the party represented by the unprepared attorney. The person who selected the attorney will have to suffer the consequences of choosing counsel unwisely. However, if the attorney's lack of preparation is so routine that it begins to look like serial neglect of clients' cases, the judge may want to consider reporting his or her observations to the Disciplinary Com-mission.

Best Practices: What to do with the Unprepared Attorney

BY hon. MARIAnnE L. VoRhEES | JUDGE, DELAWARE CIRCUIT CoURT 1

Photo. ©

istockphoto.com

/stockphoto4u.


There is little hope for a good future for foster youth who age out of the foster care system without a perma-

nent family. These young people often drop out of school, become unemployed, homeless, or end up incarcerated. Aging out of foster care without a permanent home is the highest risk outcome for a foster youth. Nationally, about 25,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 leave foster care each year. In 2009, approximately 435 Indiana children in foster care turned 18 and faced aging out of the system without a permanent family.

Because of the concerns for these older youth, the National CASA Association developed the Fostering Futures pilot project, which was underwritten by the Wal-Mart Foundation. They selected the Indiana State Office of GAL/CASA as one of 16 programs in the nation to participate and awarded a $75,000 implementation grant.

The National CASA Association goal was for each state pilot site to train at least 75 volunteers utilizing the asso-ciation’s new draft curriculum called Fostering Futures: Supporting Youth Transitions into Adulthood. The vol-unteers were trained to work with older youth focusing on a concept called “pos-sible selves,” which helps young people achieve their full potential by visualizing a positive self-identity and avoiding a neg-ative one. In the training, GAL/CASA volunteers learn how to work with youth in planning for a positive future. The volunteers help the youth identify their

strengths. They ask questions such as: where do you see yourself in one year? What are some short, medium and long term goals that can lead to a better future? What skills or tools do you need to get there? What should you avoid in order to accomplish these goals?

The CASA volunteers are also trained to help the foster youth complete a needs assessment and locate resources to assist them in the key areas of educa-tion, employment, housing, supportive relationships, and physical and behav-ioral health. The ultimate goal is to empower these young people to achieve their own goals by purposeful planning and positive decision-making.

The Fostering Futures pilot project is scheduled to conclude at the end of March, 2011. Since the project’s incep-tion one year ago, the Indiana State Of-fice of GAL/CASA has provided 8 dif-ferent Fostering Futures training events from Evansville to South Bend. The State Office exceeded the goals of the project and trained 102 volunteers from 30 different programs across Indiana. These volunteers are now working with approximately 120 older foster youth. When the pilot project concludes, the curriculum will be evaluated and revised based on the participants’ feedback. A revised training curriculum should be available in the fall of 2011. The Indiana GAL/CASA Office hopes to continue to offer the Fostering Futures training so we can improve the lives of Indiana’s foster youth who age out of the system.

Fostering FuturesA Program for Older Foster Youth

BY LESLIE DUnn | STATE DIRECToR, GAL/CASA, STATE CoURT ADMInISTRATIon

For more information

on this or any other

GAL/CASA program or

project, please contact

Leslie Dunn at 317-232-

2542 or by email at

[email protected].

Photo. Jack h

ollingsworth.


Penny Bogan has traveled all over the world, but there has been a career constant in her life—the Boone County Clerk’s Office. She started working in the

office in 1986. The secret to her 25-year success is pretty simple—her philosophy revolves around the importance of teamwork. “We’re all working with the same goal. We have meetings with the judges, the prosecutor and the sheriff. We all need to be on the same page. It’s worked well for us to discuss any issues.”

Over the years, the caseload of the Boone County courts has increased. When Bogan started in the Clerk’s office, there were just over 7,000 new cases filed each year. By 2000, that number had climbed to over 10,000 new filings, and in 2009 the annual filings were over 16,600. “It’s a tremendous amount of work, our caseload is exploding. We have to be more organized than ever before,” said Bogan.

The newly filed cases are in addition to the Clerk’s many other duties. “It’s much more than people realize,” Bogan explained while providing a detailed list of her other responsibilities. “We process bond-related payments, handle traffic tickets, issue mar-riage licenses, do book-keeping, process tax warrants, garnish-ments and mortgage foreclosures, work on sheriff sales, take care of old records, process child support and, of course, are responsible for election administration.” With so many tasks, Bogan and her staff of 9 are continually working on improve-ments to their processes. She believes that if there is ever a reduction in staff in the future due to fiscal pressures these improvements will be vital to their daily operations.

Bogan’s team is working with the Indiana Judicial Conference Strategic Planning Committee on a pilot project to improve the way trial court records are managed. “We’ve met four times. It’s a work-in-progress, and we have a lot of great ideas,” said Bogan. Montgomery County Superior Court Judge Peggy Lohorn is a member of the strategic planning committee and is working with Bogan and other clerks on this project. Clerk Bogan also serves on the Bureau of Motor Vehicles Task-

BoonE CoUnTY

CLeRK Penny BoGAn

BY KAThRYn DoLAn | PUBLIC InFoRMATIon oFFICER, InDIAnA SUPREME CoURT

Clerk Bogan married her high school sweetheart, Tom, and now has three grandchildren who all live near them.

Pho

to. c

ourt

esy

of c

lerk

Bog

an.

Pho

to. d

ru m

arks

.

it’s a tremendous amount of work, our caseload is exploding. We have to be more organized than ever before.

Clerk Bogan has served the Boone County Clerk's office for 25 years, where the annual filings have more than doubled in that time.


clErk'S cornEr

force Committee, and she was just recently asked by Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steve David to serve on a special task force of the Supreme Court Records Management Committee which will study and make recommendations to improve the judgment docket book.

“Record keeping, file maintenance, transcript preparation and contact with the public are handled in a variety of ways by clerks in different counties,” explained Judge Lohorn. “The strategic planning committee and a committee of clerks are brainstorm-ing about ideas to transfer court-related clerk functions. Boone County’s organization and method for keeping records could be replicated by other counties. These pilot projects in volunteer counties with small, medium and large populations will allow courts to continue working with clerks to provide service to the public in a professional, timely and efficient manner.”

In Boone County, the Clerk’s office scans the case documents when they are received and then transfers the case file to the court handling the case. But not all counties handle records in the same way. “In speaking with other clerks,” said Bogan, “there are concerns about having the capability of locating the file immediately.”

For Bogan, improving practices means better customer service. “We have five city courts that handle traffic tickets” she said. “A police officer can file the ticket in any one of those courts. If the person who got the ticket misplaces it, she may have to call five different courts to find her ticket and get information about court procedures or how to pay the ticket. This might give the public a less favorable impression of our efficiency. People should only have to contact one office.”

When Bogan is not busy with Clerk’s office business, she is devoted to her family and travel. She’s also a self-described “art fanatic.” Bogan loves landscape oil paintings. An artist herself, she has a few of her own works in her home. She has also given some of her pieces as gifts to friends. She enjoys traveling around the globe to see famous works of art and spending time vacationing in Paris and London with her husband of 38-years, Tom Bogan. The one-time high school sweethearts now have 3 grandchildren, whom they recently surprised with a trip to Disney World.

Bogan is grateful to have her children and grandchildren near-by and honored to be a public servant working with such a dedicated court family. “I have never regretted my decision to add my name to the ballot,” she explained. “I admire anyone who campaigns and stands strong on issues to help better the community. In January, I was sworn into office for my last four-year term. It was a bittersweet moment. Hopefully I have improved the office, and it has always been my intention to work together with my local officials, fellow Clerks, and with state legislators. Clerks are only as good as our staff, and I respect each one of them and the work they do to ensure the integrity of our office. There are still many tasks I hope to achieve in my next four years. I want to leave with a good feel-ing that I have made a difference.”

2011 Court Reform Grants applications now online; due June 1Funds are available to assist courts in a district or county in assessing their organization and also for helping implement recommended improvements. Applicant courts will identify a particular problem they want to solve, reform they want to achieve, or a general desire that the district/county would benefit from an objective assessment of the current orga-nization, management, and processes and identification of best practices.

The court reform grants target three broad areas, which are listed below in the order of priority:

Governance and efficiency efforts at a district level1. Governance and efficiency efforts at the county level2. Innovative programs and technologies at either 3. district or county level

For more information and to download an application, go to:

courts.IN.gov/admin/reform/2011

Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge Margret G. Robb has been selected to be a member of the Ameri-can Law Institute (ALI). Chief Judge Robb was nomi-nated by Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. To become a member of the ALI, a person must be nominated and have two additional sponsors. The American Law Institute is the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law. The Institute (made up of 4000 lawyers, judges, and law professors of the highest qualifications) drafts, discusses, revises, and publishes Restatements of the Law, model statutes, and principles of law that are enormously influential in the courts and legislatures, as well as in legal scholarship and education. ALI has long been influential internationally and, in recent years, more of its work has become international in scope.

By participating in the Institute's work, its distinguished members have the opportunity to influence the de-velopment of the law in both existing and emerging areas, to work with other eminent lawyers, judges, and academics, to give back to a profession to which they are deeply dedicated, and to contribute to the public good.

SPoTlIGHT


This is The fourTeenTh of our CourT Times arTiCles ThaT highlighT up Close and personal a member of The

indiana JudiCiary. brown CounTy CirCuiT CourT Judge JudiTh a. sTewarT is our Judge feaTured in This issue.

following law sChool, she aCCepTed a one year Clerkship for a federal Judge, The honorable harold baker,

in danville, illinois, Then reTurned To indianapolis To praCTiCe law in general Civil liTigaTion wiTh lewis,

bowman, sT. Clair and wagner, now lewis and wagner. she moved To brown CounTy in 1986, and in 1988 was

hired To serve as referee of The brown CounTy CirCuiT CourT for Then CirCuiT CourT Judge samuel rosen.

when Judge rosen Chose noT To run for reeleCTion, she was eleCTed Judge of The brown CounTy CirCuiT

CourT and Took offiCe January 1, 1991. in 1993, presidenT william ClinTon appoinTed her To serve as The

uniTed sTaTes aTTorney for The souThern disTriCT of indiana, a posiTion she held unTil 2000 when she had

The privilege of reTurning To The benCh in brown CounTy. Judge sTewarT has served as Judge of The brown

CounTy CirCuiT CourT sinCe february 2000.

What do you like most and least about being a trial court judge?

What I like best, hands down, is the privilege of presiding over jury trials. With each trial, regardless of the verdict, my faith in our jury system is renewed. Time after time, citizens step forward to answer the call to jury duty. I have now conducted over 100 jury trials, and can honestly say that in every single case, the jurors have been conscientious and tried their best to reach a fair and impartial verdict. I am honored to be a part of our system of justice. What I like least is my tendency to worry and second guess my decisions.

What Was your major in college and Why did you decide to study laW?

I majored in English and German at Butler University. My mother was a legal secretary, and I grew up hearing her tell stories about how attorneys were able to help people. I think my early perception of the law as a noble profession had a lot to do with my decision to study the law.

What Would you do if you Were not a judge?

I truly am not sure, and I hope I do not to have to find out too soon!

Who are the people you most admire?

Close to home, my family for their strength, kindness and selflessness. On a larger stage, former Attorney General Janet Reno for her courage and integrity, and President Obama for his dignity and open mindedness in the face of incredible challenges.

What are your hobbies or favorite leisure activities, and hoW did you first get involved?

I love activities that put me in touch with nature, including backpacking, camping, and nature oriented travel, especially if we can include our dog and a little adventure!

What are your favorite books, and have you read any recently, or are reading noW, that you Would recommend?

I love to read, mostly fiction, and it is hard to narrow down my “favorites.” In terms of classics and plays, I love William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mock-ingbird, Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Ar-thur Miller’s Death of a Salesman. Toni Morrison’s Beloved has to be one of my favorites as well. For “escape” reading, I love Randy Wayne White’s crime/mystery novels. Books I have read recently and would recommend include once recently recommended to me, Kathryn Stockett’s The Help.

Where did you groW up and hoW Would you describe your childhood?

I grew up in Speedway, Indiana, in a middle class working neighborhood in the same house my mother still lives in. I grew up with my mother, her mother and father, and my sister. I would describe my childhood as the kind I wish every child could have—a childhood with some wonderful memories as well as some “character building” obstacles to overcome, but full of unconditional love and great role models.

Hon. JuDitH A. steWARtBY JAMES F. MAGUIRE | STAFF ATToRnEY, STATE CoURT ADMInISTRATIonSIdEBar


do you have a favorite quote(s)?

Winston Churchill’s: “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”

Also, Edmund Burke’s: “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do noth-ing,” and John Muir’s: “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.”

However, I think a more apropos quote for me might be Cath-erine Aird’s “If you can’t be a good example, then you’ll just have to be a horrible warning.”

Where is your favorite vacation spot?

My husband and I love to travel, and some of my favorite places we have been include Nepal, Venezuela, Bhutan and Uganda. The beauty of the nature, wildlife and people we en-countered in these countries was remarkable. In the last two years, especially with the smaller economy, we have fallen in love with canoe camping in the Minnesota Boundary Waters, which has the added benefit of being able to take our dog with us!

do you have a favorite meal, recipe, and restaurant?

No real favorite—I just love to eat!

The Adventurous Judge. (top) Judge stewart and her husband atop Gokyo Ri in nepal, at just over 18,000 feet, with mt. everest in the distance; (bottom) Judge steward bungee jumping in new Zealand.

Photos. courtesy of Judge stewart.


Some rules of conduct are worth repeating. This is one of

them. Generally, it is not a good idea for a judge to hire a

family member or friend as a court employee or to appoint

them to an administrative position. There are a number of

practical reasons for this view, including that the Indiana Code

of Judicial Conduct requires judges to make hiring and ap-

pointment decisions in a fair and impartial manner.

Specifically, Rule 2.13(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge:

shall exercise the power of (1) appointment impartially and on the basis of merit; and

shall avoid nepotism, favoritism, (2) and unnecessary appointments.

Appointees of a judge include assigned counsel, referees, commissioners, spe-cial masters, receivers, special advocates, guardians, and other court personnel. Jud. Cond. R. 2.13, Comm. 1. “Nepo-tism” is defined in the Code of Judicial Conduct as “the appointment or hiring of any relative within the third degree of relationship of either the judge or the judge’s spouse or domestic partner, or the spouse or domestic partner of such relative.” Jud. Cond. R. 2.13, Comm. 2. Persons within the third degree of

relationship include great-grandparents, grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, siblings, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and nieces and nephews. Jud. Cond. Terminology.

Most judges are aware of these restric-tions and readily avoid hiring or appoint-ing relatives and friends. However, from time to time, even the most ethically-cautious judge may find herself faced with the situation of wanting to hire a relative or friend because that person is well-suited for an available position. In limited circumstances (and I cannot stress the word “limited” enough), the Code of Judicial Conduct allows for a judge to hire or appoint a relative.

To decide whether hiring or appointing a relative or friend may be justifiable under the circumstances, a judge first should examine Advisory Opinion #2-98 (Note: in Advisory Opinion #2-98,

Canon 3C(4) is now Rule 2.13 and Canon 2B is now Rule 2.4, available on the Court’s website at courts.IN.gov/jud-qual) and ask himself the following questions:

What is the degree, extent, or •depth of the relationship of the prospective employee to the judge?

Is the position considered •relatively lucrative?

Is the position permanent or •temporary, full-time or part-time?

What is the amount of day-to-•day supervision and contact the judge would have with the prospective employee?

Was the position announced or •advertised in the same manner as other vacancies within the court?

Were other qualified applicants •considered?

Close familial or social relationships between a judge and a prospective em-ployee are more likely to lead the public to believe that factors other than merit influenced the employment decision. In these situations, not only does the judge risk damaging the public’s trust by hiring the individual, but he also risks a spill-over effect, as the public also may question the judge’s impartial-ity to decide cases, given their mistrust of his administrative decision-making. For these reasons, the Commission on Judicial Qualifications repeatedly has advised judges in the past that employ-ment or appointment of a spouse likely will never be appropriate.

Similarly, the more lucrative the posi-tion, the more likely that the public will be uneasy if a judge employs or appoints a relative. In contrast, a temporary position is less likely to draw concern.

Judicial Hiring and Administrative Appointments Revisited

BY ADRIEnnE MEIRInG CoUnSEL To ThE InDIAnA CoMMISSIon on JUDICIAL qUALIFICATIonS

if any judge needs a consultation regarding hiring or any

other matter involving judicial conduct, contact adrienne

meiring at 317-232-4706 or [email protected].

aSk adrIEnnE


A judge should announce or adver-tise the position and consider other qualified applicants. If a judge has not complied with either of these prongs yet hires the relative or friend, he is open-ing himself to public criticism and a possible ethics investigation.

After the judge has advertised the posi-tion, considered other applicants, and carefully evaluated the other factors above, she should re-examine the qualifi-cations of the family member (or friend). If the judge still believes that the relative (or close friend) is uniquely qualified for the position, then the judge should con-sult with Commission staff and consider requesting a written advisory opinion from the Commission about the propri-ety of hiring the individual.

Assuming that the Commission agrees that hiring the individual is acceptable, the judge should take one last step be-fore making the final hiring or appoint-ment decision: consider the worst case scenario. What if the employment rela-tionship does not work out? How will that affect the judge’s family/social/work/community relationships? What if other employees do not get along with the prospective employee and those employees need to complain about that person’s performance or actions? What if the judge has to take disciplinary action against the employee? A judge would be wise to consider the potential negative consequences of hiring a rela-tive or friend, as the failure to do so can have disastrous results.

Ultimately, here are the three best piec-es of advice I can offer to a judge who is considering whether to hire a relative or friend. First, be honest with yourself. Is the individual really the best person for the job or are you motivated to hire them for other reasons? Second, make a list of all the reasons you believe this person is more qualified than all other applicants. Would your reasons withstand the scrutiny of an objective observer? And, finally, proceed with extreme caution. After all, as Aldous Huxley once noted, “Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions, it is walled and roofed with them.”

John N. BarryBlackford superior court

Beth Ann ButschFayette circuit court

Richard D'AmourVanderburgh superior court

Wendy Davisallen superior court

Lynne Ellismartin circuit court

John Evansharrison circuit court

Douglas FahlWhitley superior court

Marsha Owens Howserscott superior court

Larry MedlockWashington circuit court

George Paraslake circuit court

John RoachVigo superior court

Harry Siamasmontgomery circuit court

The following judges were elected in November 2010 and took office in January 2011.

Newly-Elected Judges


Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204

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

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 protected].

CONTRIBUTORS

Hon. Marianne L. Vorhees Judge, Delaware Circuit Court 1

Adrienne Meiring Counsel, Commission on Judicial Qualifications, State Court Administration

Leslie Dunn State Director, GAL/CASA, State Court Administration

Michelle Goodman Staff Attorney, Indiana Judicial Center

James F. Maguire Staff Attorney, State Court Administration

Kathryn Dolan Public Information Officer, Indiana Supreme Court

Lisa Thompson Probation Subject Matter Expert, State Court Administration / JTAC

Rebecca Taylor Communications Assistant, State Court Administration


The Indiana Court Times is available online at courts.in.gov/timesIf you like the online version better than the magazine, you can unsub-scribe from the paper version by emailing Andrea Rusk at [email protected].

Subscribe to the Court Times online by email or with the RSS reader of your choice.

Follow Indiana Courts on Twitter at twitter.com/incourts

Watch videos at the Indiana Courts channel at youtube.com/incourts

PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERS

This newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference.

stay Connected

Documents

Indiana Court Times 20.2