Indiana Court Times 20.1

Issue 20.1 JAN/FEB 2011

Martha Blood Wentworth took her seat as judge of the Indiana Tax Court on

January 17, 2011. Judge Wentworth was appointed to the position by Gover-nor Mitch Daniels on December 22, 2010. She was one of the three candi-dates presented to Governor Daniels by Indiana’s seven-member Judicial Nominating Commission. She succeeds Judge Thomas G. Fisher who retired in December as the state’s first Tax Court Judge. Judge Wentworth’s formal rob-ing ceremony will take place in the Su-preme Court Courtroom, State House 3rd Floor at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 8, 2011.

Upon appointment, Judge Wentworth said, “I am humbled to have been chosen by the Governor to try to fill the shoes of my mentor and friend, Judge Thomas Fisher. My goal is to maintain the tax court as a forum where devo-tion to the rule of law, fairness to all litigants, and professional civility are the benchmarks.”

Judge Wentworth, who was born in Detroit, Michigan, moved to Indiana with her family during high school. She earned undergraduate degrees from both the former Bennett College of Millbrook, New York and Indiana University in Bloomington.

Upon earning her law degree from Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, she clerked for Judge Fisher at the Tax Court for two years. Then, from 1992 to 1998, she practiced tax law

with the Indianapolis law firm of Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman. Since 1998, Judge Wentworth has been with Deloitte Tax LLP, serving for nearly ten years as tax director, leading the Indiana multistate tax group. In addition, she teaches graduate level classes in state and local taxation as an adjunct profes-sor at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business in Bloomington.

Indiana’s General Assembly established the Indiana Tax Court on July 1, 1986. The Tax Court has exclusive jurisdic-tion over any case that arises under the Indiana tax laws and is an initial appeal of a final determination made by the Indiana Board of Tax Review or the Indiana Department of State Revenue. In addition, the Tax Court has juris-diction over certain appeals from the Indiana Department of Local Govern-ment Finance.

New Indiana Tax Court Judge

Martha Blood Wentworth

Photo. C

ourtesy of Judge Wentw

orth.

CONTENTS

New Indiana Tax Court Judge: Martha Blood Wentworth ...........................2

Bits & Bytes A Framework for Innovation ...........3

2011 Court Reform Grants .............6

Best Practices in Dealing with Self-Represented Litigants .............7

State of the Judiciary: Burdened but Unbowed .................8

Judge Trockman Receives Key to the City of Evansville & Judge Kiely Heads New Veteran's Treatment Court ...........................11

siDeBAR Hon. James D. Humphrey .............12

BRenDA's BAiliwick Employee Handbooks: Neither Fish Nor Fowl ...................14

sPOtliGHt Appellate judges honored ............15

2 JAN/FEB 2011 courttimes

In 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) initiated a project that would enable courts to submit electronically commercial driver viola-tions to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV). Like other states, Indiana was at risk of losing millions in federal fund-ing for highways unless our courts could reduce the time between conviction and reporting to the BMV. We called the project INcite—the Indiana Courts Information Technology Extranet.

Though INcite’s original purpose was focused on commercial drivers, it very quickly became clear that courts and related offices had significant need for similar systems to handle transfer of lo-cal data to the state and federal levels—or vice versa—in many areas of their work. Indeed by 2007, INcite included an additional four applications, and today the site houses eleven applications for use by trial courts, clerks, probation officers, law enforcement, and victim advocates.

Late last year, the Council of State Governments (CSG) presented Indiana with an Innovations Award for INcite. CSG has been selecting Innovations Award winners since 1986 in an effort to promote successful state projects that have the potential to be replicated or modeled by other states.

What exactly is INcite?After the initial success of the first appli-cation for commercial driver convictions, JTAC identified similar potential web applications to serve courts and clerks. Often, these project ideas were the result of requests for help from local courts or requirements in newly effective legisla-tion. As the need for those additional applications became apparent, so did the need for a standardized method for building, securing, and managing them. A more refined approach to develop-ment was need for these new applica-tions. That led to the creation of the INcite Framework.

Users of INcite know it as a secure web-site that allows them to exchange data, whether reporting statistics or convic-tions, tracking a probationer’s progress, or downloading a jury list. Developers of INcite know it as a framework—both a blueprint that dictates the technical specifications of any application or interface developed for the site, and a foundation for new applications, which includes user account management, security, and shared data.

In the beginning of INcite, applica-tions sprang up like houses in a city neighborhood—different architectural styles, different builders, and no rules about how high the fence can be. The INcite Framework is more like a planned, gated community with rules about things like paint color, building materials, and mailbox height. Rules like these may take a bit of the charm out of a neighborhood, but they create only benefits when it comes to develop-ing a website.

Single Sign-on and Pass-word Recovery. One of the basic components of the framework is the ability to create an account for an individual user and then assign that user access to applications that corre-spond with the user’s job function. The user then logs in to INcite once and can access all of her available applications. If she forgets her password, instead of calling the helpdesk, she can use the automated system for password retrieval or reset the password.

Security. For INcite developers, the fact that security is built into the framework has a huge impact on devel-opment time and complexity. Without the framework, each application would have to include its own security model; because of the framework, developers needn’t worry about security and can focus on functionality.

By lINdsEy BorsChEl WEB CoordINAtor, stAtE Court AdmINIstrAtIoN / JtAC

Cover Illustration. Andrey solovyev.

CoNtINuEd oN NEXt PAGE

DEFINITION: Application

Another word for “software,” an application may be installed on a personal device (e.g., your computer or smart phone) or installed on a web server. Ap-plications can be limited, like an app for creating a simple to-do list, or complex, like an online banking system.

courttimes JAN/FEB 2011 3

BITS & BYTES

Shared Data. Another time saver for developers is the availability of shared data in the framework. For example, if two different INcite applica-tions both need to have a field for an at-torney name, both applications can pull attorney names from the same source of data—in this case, the Roll of Attorneys. As attorney records are updated, the attorney information in those applica-tions is updated, so not only does this feature simplify development, but it also increases the accuracy of data.

Event Logs. Tracking events—especially errors—on the INcite server helps developers and administrators keep the site up and running efficiently.

What has INcite helped Indiana accomplish?The various applications now available to courts and clerks through INcite have saved state and local government offices both time and money, and in many cases, they’ve improved public safety or enhanced Hoosiers’ access to justice. Here are some examples:

$34 million in federal highway funds secured

With the development of the first INcite application—funded by a federal grant—Indiana met the federal requirements and brought the time period between commercial driver conviction and report-ing to the BMV from an average of more than 53 days to less than 8 days. This ac-complishment helped secure $34 million in annual highway funds.

law enforcement man-hours reduced

According to Lt. Col. John Clawson of the Indiana State Police, since they implemented the Electronic Citation and Warning System (eCWS), over 20 full-time data entry positions have been eliminated. Further, it is estimated that over 22 thousand man-hours to date

CoNtINuEd From PrEVIous PAGE

have been saved because law enforce-ment personnel no longer have to com-plete data entry on protection orders thanks to the Protection Order Registry.

clerks’ offices save money

Without INcite’s Tax Warrant applica-tion available free to Clerks around the state, local governments would collec-tively spend over $150,000 each year for annual maintenance on a replace-ment system. Many Clerks would still be processing tax warrants manually, but because INcite is available, they not only don’t have an annual fee, they’re receiving filing fees from the Depart-ment of Revenue in a more timely way.

Victims are better served and protected

Indiana’s Protection Order Registry (POR)—developed with federal grant money and made mandatory statewide by the Indiana General Assembly in 2009—has drastically improved the transfer of data from local to state to federal law enforcement. As a result, access to data about active protection orders empowers police to enforce the orders effectively. Today, a victim can apply for a protection order in the com-fort and privacy of a victim advocate’s office instead of exposing her private life in a busy Clerk’s office. Soon, vic-tims will receive email and text message alerts about the status of their protec-tion orders, and the public will be able to search non-confidential protection order information online.

For more information…If you would like to learn more about Indiana’s INcite project or how your court or office can begin using one of its applications, contact Mary DePrez at [email protected] or (317) 234-2604.

Photo. s

tew m

ilne, Council of s

tate Governm

ents.

The Council of State Governments presents JTAC with their Innovations Award. left to right: state rep. Bob Godfrey (Connecticut), 2011 Chairman of the Council of state Governments; Jill russell, senior Field support specialist, JtAC; state rep. steve Buehrer (ohio), 2010 midwestern legislative Chairman, Council of state Governments.


In late summer 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court awarded more than $485,000 to 25 courts across the state for the study and implemen-tation of various programs designed to help courts streamline their opera-tions. Under the Court Reform Grant Program, grants of up to $30,000 are available for initial studies and one-time equipment purchases, while grants of up to $40,000 are available to put study recommendations into action. The pro-gram is funded through reimbursement from the federal government of state level expenditures on child support recoupment services under Title IV-D.

For the 2011 grant cycle, the Supreme Court will give priority consideration to projects in the following areas:

studies and/or implementa-1. tion of unified court manage-ment, administration and budgeting on either a county or district level;

study and/or implementation 2. of performance measures using the National Center for state Courts’ (NCsC’s) Courtools;

modern court reporting tech-3. nology;

studies and/or implementa-4. tion of the transfer of respon-sibility for court records from the clerks to the courts; and

district level programs, such 5. as district problem-solving courts.

Each of the projects funded in 2010 are representative of the types of proj-ects given special consideration. For example, Starke County, Bartholomew County, Fountain County, Lake Supe-rior Court, and Sullivan County each received grants ranging from $3,000 to $30,000 to purchase and install digital court reporting systems. The creation of an accurate and complete record of trial court proceedings is vital, yet many courts are using outdated and some-times unreliable reporting equipment, requiring dozens of man-hours to create a single transcript. Jennings County Circuit Court Judge Jon Webster says of his 2009 court reporting grant, “It is a huge improvement for us and was long past due!”

Marion and Henry counties are col-laborating on a study by the National Center for State Courts to create a rec-ommended approach to the transfer of record-keeping responsibilities from the clerks to the courts themselves. Results of this study will be made available to other courts across the state who wish to transfer record-keeping responsibilities.

Hendricks County used its $5,000 Court Reform Grant as matching funds for a $50,000 State Justice Institute grant for a strategic plan to better coordinate court functions and improve court cost-effectiveness. Dearborn County requested a $30,000 study grant in furtherance of its goal to create a uni-fied court system, consolidated proba-tion department, and long-term vision for “umbrella” resources.

Efficiency studies will have long-reach-ing effects, not only in the recipient courts, but in other courts able to apply the study results. By eliminating dupli-cative work and automating common processes, courts will find themselves better able to wisely utilize resources in good economic times as well as bad.

The 2011 grant cycle will begin on May 1, and applications will be due by June 1, 2011. The 2011 Court Reform Grant Application will be made available on the Court’s website, courts.in.gov, and copies will also be mailed to all trial court judges during the first week of March.

For further information about apply-ing for a Court Reform Grant this year, contact Elizabeth Daulton, Project Manager, at (317) 234-7155 or [email protected].

The economic downturn and the fiscal challenges facing the public sector have left little

room in county budgets for court reorganization, innovation and improvement projects.

The Supreme Court’s Court Reform Grant Program, first launched in 2008, continues to

help courts innovate and improve their administration.

COURT REFORM GRANTS2011

By ElizABEth DAulton | Court rEform GrAnts ProjECt mAnAGEr, stAtE Court ADministrAtion


Dealing with self-represented liti-gants presents many challenges for trial court judges. And, in today’s

troubled economy, more people than ever before are representing themselves in legal matters.

At the September, 2010, Judicial Conference, a “best practices” session was held, and trial judges offered many thoughtful suggestions for dealing with self-represented litigants.

For example, after a self-represented litigant files a petition to modify child custody, the judge might instruct the court staff to include language indicat-ing the evidentiary burden on the party in the notice of the hearing date, such as: “Petitioner, Jane Doe, is advised she has the burden of proof to make the showing required in Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-21.” Judges cannot give legal advice to the litigants, but can highlight a relevant statute or court rule before a party presents evidence.

Another judge suggested that in cases involving complicated issues, an order should be issued directing the self-repre-sented litigants to appear at the pre-trial conference. At the pre-trial conference, the judge can advise the self-represented litigant that no assistance will be given during the hearing; that the judge must hold every self-represented litigant to the same standards as a lawyer; and, ask if the litigant intends to hire a lawyer. A judge can impress on the litigant how impor-tant it is to hire a lawyer by asking and

answering a question such as: if your son broke his leg, would you treat it yourself? No, you would go to the doctor. This is a very important matter, and you should try to hire a lawyer to help you. A judge may also suggest that a qualified litigant seek pro bono assistance, and have the information available to find lawyers.

When conducting a hearing with one or more self-represented litigants, some judges suggest advising them about basic courtroom rules. Here are a few examples:

the plaintiff/petitioner is the first to 1. present evidence;

when a witness is finished testifying, 2. the defendant/respondent will have an opportunity to ask questions;

after the plaintiff/petitioner has 3. completed the presentation of all evidence, the defendant/respon-dent will have the opportunity to present evidence;

the parties may not to talk to each 4. other during the hearing, and should direct all comments to the judge;

it is very important that only one 5. person talk at a time and never in-terrupt the other party; and

each side will have a chance to 6. present their case to the judge when it is their turn.

What should a judge do if only one side is represented by counsel and the self-represented party will suffer a real injustice due to lack of legal representa-tion? For example, a self-represented mother may be pursuing a petition to modify custody because the children are in danger in their father’s home, but doesn’t know how to properly present the necessary evidence.

This presents a dilemma for the judge, who is not allowed to give legal advice or assistance, but does not want to see the children suffer an injustice. Suggested solutions for this particular situation include:

adjourn the hearing and advise the 1. mother she needs a lawyer’s assis-tance;

offer to reset the case and give her 2. a chance to hire a lawyer;

refer her to a pro bono program;3.

assign a public defender (if the 4. county has available resources);

appoint a Guardian ad litem for the 5. children; or

refer the parties to a mediator with 6. the court’s Family Court Alterna-tive dispute resolution Program, if available.

The consensus among the judges at-tending the conference was that in cases with two self-represented parties, in a

[Editor's note: this is the second in a series of four articles from the Ethics and Professionalism Committee of the indiana judicial Conference. the author

thanks and acknowledges the contributions of those who attended the session at the september, 2010, judicial Conference in indianapolis and contributed

to the “Best Practices” suggestions related here.]

By hon. mAriAnnE l. VorhEEs | juDGE, DElAwArE CirCuit Court 1

CoNtINuEd oN PAGE 15

“Petitioner, Jane Doe, is advised she has the burden of proof to make the showing required in Indiana Code Section 31-17-2-21.” courttimes JAN/FEB 2011 7

Best Practices in Dealing with Self-Represented Litigants

O ne of the features of our recent national dialogue was skepticism about the capabili-

ties of public institutions and leaders. You’d occasionally hear phrases like the “government is broken,” and while people say that in Indiana they didn’t often say it about Indiana.

That’s because, even acknowledging our multiple problems, many elements of Indiana government under serious strain have proven themselves capable of coming to terms with crisis.

The men and women of Indiana’s courts have also proven able to diagnose a defect or identify an opportunity and capable of seizing the best ideas avail-able.

Today’s challenges cover an amazing range. What do we do when someone who speaks only Laotian shows up in court? What can be done to cut the cost of litigation? How do we expand a new system of assessing the effective-

ness of individual courts? How do we provide advocates for the thousands of abused or neglected children? How do we advance the cause of equal oppor-tunity in the legal profession? How do we give a fair hearing to litigants when there’s a sixteen percent growth in case filings but only four percent more judges?

The men and women of the Indiana courts tackle all these issues and more, both through long-range strategic plan-ning and through immediate action.

The Mortgage Foreclosure CrisisThe first is a genuine crisis on which all three branches of Indiana govern-ment have worked: mass foreclosures. Foreclosure filings were even higher last year than in 2009. Indiana is no longer near the top of the national list, but that’s little comfort to the 43,000 new families facing foreclosure.

New legislation gives homeowners the right to a settlement conference and the chance to negotiate a modified loan. With our partners, we’ve been perfect-ing techniques to maximize the possibil-ity of success.

Initially, just five or six percent of homeowners responded to the notice offering a settlement conference.

The judges working on this have discovered that when the court itself sends a separate settlement notice, more than 40 percent of the homeowners respond. To make sure these confer-ences are productive, we have assigned settlement facilitators. The facilitators report that many homeowners appear for the settlement conferences embar-rassed, resigned, and tearful. In recent months this system of court-facilitated conferences has demonstrated that half the number of people who attend a settlement conference leave with a revised loan. Settlement conferences oc-cur in counties that have 60 percent of the foreclosures and will be statewide by year’s end. Everything is paid for with a user’s fee on foreclosure cases.

The Smartest Sentencing PossibleA year ago, all three branches of gov-ernment asked the Council of State Governments and the Pew Center on the States to assist the Indiana Criminal Code Evaluation Commission with re-view of our state’s criminal corrections. Recently, these researchers and Hoo-siers working with them issued their proposals. The Commission members—legislators, corrections staff, prosecu-tors, public defenders, and judges—all endorsed them.

The central idea of these proposals is to find better ways to sanction non-violent offenders locally. Half of the new commitments to our prison are people whose crimes are in the least serious category.

on Jan. 12, 2011, Chief Justice randall t. shepard delivered his 24th

state of the Judiciary address to a Joint session of the Indiana General

Assembly. An excerpted version follows. the state of the Judiciary was

broadcast to a statewide audience over the Internet and on radio and

television through Indiana Public Broadcasting stations. Video of the

speech and the full text of the 2011 address are available online. Visit

courts.in.gov/supreme/state_jud.html for all addresses since 1988.

BurdenedUnbowedbut

State of the Judiciary8 JAN/FEB 2011 courttimes

In my career I’ve handled theft cases and I’ve signed warrants for lethal injec-tion. In between those polar opposites, making sound decisions about which offenders must go to prison and which offenders may respond well to local alternatives makes all the difference for public safety, recidivism rates, employ-ability of offenders, and the dollars we spend on corrections.

A weakness in our criminal justice system has been the use of relatively outdated assessment tools to evaluate individual offenders But there are now more reliable tools to help sort out who needs to go to prison and who probably does not. In early January a new genera-tion risk assessment became mandatory in every criminal and delinquency court. We have trained and tested 2,300 proba-tion and corrections officers, drug and alcohol staff, and judges in using it. The package of sentencing reforms before you is based on reliable evidence. It’s good for Indiana and I join Governor Daniels in endorsing it.

Tackling TechnologyIndiana’s courts have proven themselves capable of identifying an opportunity or a problem, devising a plan to address it and executing the plan, especially in the area of technology. Here are some examples.

Every county now uses a Judicial Tech-nology and Automation Committee (“JTAC”) system to notify law enforce-ment immediately when a court enters a protective order. Now thirty agencies and 300 victim advocates can apply on-line for an order and avoid a trip to the courthouse. When the abuser receives the order, victims will soon get a text or e-mail notification.

We have also dealt with how to enforce effectively the laws designated to prevent people who are certified mentally ill from purchasing firearms. JTAC created an electronic system for notifying law en-forcement when someone is adjudicated mentally ill. Last week alone, names of

39 people were transmitted so police and gun dealers could do their part in keep-ing firearms from the mentally ill.

We have cut down on the hand-writing of traffic tickets with about 200 police departments using our Electronic Cita-tion and Warning System to electroni-cally process 2.8 million citations.

All of these solutions to various prob-lems work ever so much more power-fully when they are linked to each other through a court case management system we call Odyssey. We now use it in 77 courts in 26 counties accounting for nearly a third of the state’s caseload.

The power of this combination is something judges, clerks and police see close up. Let me tell you about a recent e-mail from a bail commissioner in Fort Wayne. He was doing a regular check on a defendant out on bail and learned

Photo. lindsey Borschel.

CoNtINuEd oN NEXt PAGE


to watch a video of the state of the Judiciary, from this or previous years, visit the supreme Court website at:

courts.in.gov/supreme/state_jud.html

on Odyssey the defendant was wanted on a felony warrant in Huntington County. It was on Odyssey before it was logged into IDACS. Authorities arrested the defendant. Absent Odyssey, the war-rant might never have been discovered.

Counties often ask us when can we install Odyssey. We are now installing it twice as fast as last year. Just how fast we can get this done essentially depends on how many teams we can send to the courthouses and city halls.

We pay for this work with federal grants or with fees paid by court users, presently $7 a case. We ask that it be temporarily increased to $10 to speed up installation.

Plain English Jury InstructionsPeople come to the courthouse by the tens of thousands to make possible that jewel of the Bill of Rights, trial by jury. During those trials, lawyers and judges explain the law that applies to the case jurors are being asked to decide. Too often, we use legalese. To end this practice, the Indiana Judges Associa-tion began work on “Plain English Jury Instructions.” The drafting committee, led by Judges John Pera and Carl Heldt, and an English teacher, spent three years revising the traditional instruc-tions. You can see the difference:

old instruction:

Direct evidence means evidence that directly proves a fact, with-out an inference, and which if true conclusively establishes that fact. Circumstantial evidence means evidence that proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably drawn.

New instruction:

Direct evidence that an animal ran in the snow might be the testimony of someone who actually saw the animal run in the snow. Circum-stantial evidence might be the tes-timony of someone who only saw the animal’s tracks in the snow.

How Good is What We’re Doing?Often we are asked for advice from people outside Indiana. A chief justice called to say that their judges wanted to do something about jury instructions. Experts told her: “Call Indiana.”

A federal judge was thinking about allowing jurors to ask questions dur-ing trial. I sent him to Marion County Judge Robert Altice.

The Council of State Governments and The Kennedy School both gave JTAC awards.

Judge Greg Donat won the nation’s leading honor for helping citizens navi-gate the legal system without a lawyer.

The American Bar Association said our Courts in the Classroom civics project was one of the best in the country.

In short, Indiana’s judiciary is one that keeps its feet planted firmly on Hoo-sier soil while keeping its eyes on the horizon. They are men and women of high ambition who are capable of confronting a problem, devising a plan, and executing on the plan.

Why Does This Matter?Whether we can build a better system of justice matters first and foremost to the individual citizens who come to court as part of the two million cases we hear every year. Our first duty is give them a full and fair hearing.

But whether we run a respectable court system also matters for people who have never seen the inside of a courtroom because a reliable court system is part and parcel of a decent government and a crucial element of a healthy and productive economy.

I recently heard an interview with the author of a book on the economic miracle of India. It centered on the differing narratives of India and the United States. The United States, said the reporter, has always thought of itself as a place of unlimited future opportu-nity, but now wonders whether it will be such a nation in this new century. India, long held back by caste and class, is now written about as the wave of the future. The reporter asked if India is “The New Land of Opportunity?”

The author said in both countries we tend to overplay the story line of the day and underplay the fundamentals. He noted it will take other countries a century to replicate American univer-sities, Silicon Valley and the way the American legal system functions. In short, the message was that if we do what it lies within us to do, places like India and China aren’t going to catch Indiana for a very, very long time.

I promise you we’re building a court sys-tem that does its part to make that so.


CoNtINuEd From PrEVIous PAGE

Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzap-fel presented the Key to the City

on January 25, 2011 to Vanderburgh Superior Court Judge Wayne Trock-man. Judge Trockman was recognized for his efforts in creating one of the first certified drug courts in the State of Indiana and in establishing the certi-fication program through the Indiana Judicial Center.

“Judge Trockman was one of the judicial leaders in the initiative to establish both legislation and certification for drug courts and reentry courts,” said Mary Kay Hudson, Problem–Solving Court Administrator, Indiana Judicial Center.

After ten years of presiding over the Vanderburgh County Drug Court, Judge Trockman handed over the responsibilities to Vanderburgh Supe-rior Court Judge David D. Kiely. Judge Trockman will continue to preside over the Forensic Diversion Court and the Re-entry Court.

Judge Kiely said: “Judge Trockman has set the standard on how a treatment court should be run. Courts across our country are using his model. I can’t re-place Judge Trockman. I will work hard to possibly become his equal.”

Judge Kiely will serve as the Drug Court Judge and preside over the new Vet-eran’s Treatment Court, for which he has applied for certification with the Indiana Judicial Center. Judge Kiely indicated in a telephone interview that his court and the Veterans Administra-tion will work together to ensure that veterans involved with the justice system receive all resources available to them. The closest VA Hospital to Vander-burgh County is located in Marion, Illi-

nois, about 85 miles away. He reported that there will be a VA Justice Outreach (VJO) Specialist who will work with his court. There will also be a VA case worker assigned to the VA hospital in Marion who will be responsible for working with the veterans who qualify for his court’s treatment program.

The Veterans Affairs Health Care Net-work is divided into regions, known as Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISN). Within each VISN network are VA medical centers. As part of the VA's Veteran Justice Outreach Initiative, every VA medical center has designated a Veterans Justice Outreach Specialist (VJO) who is responsible for coordinat-ing outreach, assessment and case man-agement for justice involved offenders. This outreach is extended to local law enforcement, jails and courts.

According to Judge Kiely, the court will take these steps to determine if an individual is eligible to participate in the program:

identify and verify an individual’s 1. veteran status;

determine if a person is a non-vio-2. lent offender; and

secure an agreement to partici-3. pate from the veteran defendant, the Prosecutor’s office and de-fense counsel.

Vanderburgh County Drug Court Di-rector Debra Mowbray will assist in the process and also make an assessment that a veteran is qualified to participate. She said establishment of the Veterans Court will help meet the court's goal of "helping anybody and everybody

who has an addiction and who fits the requirements of our program."

Marie M. Hulett, Health Systems Special-ist, VA Heartland Network in Columbia, Missouri has been a tremendous help according to Judge Kiely. She was in attendance at the January 25 ceremony honoring Judge Trockman and recogniz-ing Judge Kiely. According to Hulett the work of the courts and the VA for veter-ans is straight-forward: "It's giving them the quality of life back that they deserve."

The Evansville Press had a strong edito-rial in support of this effort in its Janu-ary 21, 2011 edition:

“Evansville is a city full of military veterans. Census data tells us that vet-erans make up 14 percent of the city's population (the national average is 12.7 percent), but we didn't need official statistics to let us know the city has a significant number of veterans. This is, after all, the home of numerous veter-ans organizations and events, as well as the LST (Landing Ship, Tank) 325 and a new veterans clinic.

Veterans have a strong and respected presence in our community, but alas, some of them run into trouble with the law due to substance abuse.

Indeed, according to a Sunday article by Courier & Press staff writer Mark Wil-son, a 2009 report by the Drug Policy Alliance found that roughly 200,000 veterans nationally are estimated to be in prison or in jail because of substance abuse or mental illness.

But the fact that the ones here got into trouble in Vanderburgh County may, in the long run, prove a blessing. Vander-burgh County has been highly success-ful in helping substance abusers and others get clean through one of several Superior Court programs launched by Judge Wayne Trockman.”

For further information please contact Mary Kay Hudson, Problem-Solving Court Administrator, Indiana Judicial Center, at 317-232-1313, or [email protected].

A n d

Judge TrockmanReceives Key to the City of Evansville

Judge KielyHeads New Veteran's Treatment Court


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

JudiCiary. dearborn-ohio CounTy CirCuiT CourT Judge James d. humphrey is our Judge feaTured in This issue.

he is a 1980 graduaTe of indiana universiTy, bloomingTon, baChelor of arTs, phi beTa Kappa and wiTh highesT

disTinCTion, and a 1983 graduaTe of indiana universiTy, bloomingTon, law sChool, Cum laude. he served as

depuTy proseCuTing aTTorney, dearborn-ohio CounTies from 1984-1986 and as proseCuTing aTTorney, dearborn-

ohio CounTies 1987-1994. he served as Chairman, proseCuTing aTTorneys CounCil from 1991-1992. he was eleCTed in

november 1998 as The dearborn-ohio CounTy CirCuiT CourT Judge and has served ConTinuously in ThaT CapaCiTy

from January 1999 To The presenT. Judge humphrey and his wife of TwenTy-five years, heidi, are blessed wiTh

Two sons. John, age 20, is a sophomore aT hanover College, and alexander, age 18, is a lawrenCeburg high

sChool senior who will be aTTending The uniTed sTaTes air forCe aCademy in The fall of 2011.

WhAT dO yOu lIkE mOST ANd lEAST AbOuT bEING A TrIAl COurT JudGE?

One of the most challenging things about being a general jurisdiction trial judge is dealing with the variety of problems that you see on a daily basis. One minute you may be dealing with a felony, the next a problem in Juvenile Court, and then a domestic relations issue. While these different types of cases create challenges they also make our job extremely interesting. If there is one type of case which may provide the most personal satisfaction, I would have to say it is conducting an adoption. If you ever need a reinforcement and re-minder that goodness still exists in this world, you see it each time an adoption is granted.

Maybe the greatest challenge that we as trial judges face is time – finding the time to conduct all the hearings, do the research, write the decisions and some-times just to think about what we need to do. Many of us cannot find this time during the regular work day which is why we spend a lot of time catching up on evenings and weekends.

The other interesting thing about my job is that I have the honor of repre-senting two counties, Dearborn and Ohio Counties.

WhAT WAS yOur mAJOr IN COllEGE ANd Why dId yOu dECIdE TO STudy lAW?

My major was political science. My grade school and high school friend, Randy Hesser, and I decided to study Law in about our sophomore year of high school. The idea probably came from watching lawyer shows on television. As seniors, we also acted in the high school play, a trial drama “The Night of January 16th.” Randy played the prosecutor and I played the defense attorney. There is some irony here since I later became a Prosecuting Attorney. Randy is now a partner in a law firm in Elkhart specializing in busi-nesses law.

WhAT WOuld yOu dO If yOu WErE NOT A JudGE?

I would probably enter another chal-lenging profession—teaching. I love to help teach young lawyers trial skills and in general what it means to be a mem-ber of the legal profession.

I also love to teach others how to fly-fish. I’ve even taught my wife and chil-dren. Some have also suggested that I should open up a barbeque shack, since I like to cook. I am afraid, however, that if I would engage in these hobbies as a profession that they would become much less enjoyable.

WhO ArE ThE pEOplE yOu mOST AdmIrE?

It has been a tradition for many years in this community for one of our Judges to give a speech on Memorial Day at the Greendale Cemetery. I have now given the Memorial Day Address for twelve years. I like to speak each year about a local veteran and their experiences serving our country. In preparing these speeches I had the privilege of meeting and listening to the war experiences of two World War II Veterans, Chester Lester and Robert “Sarge” Schwing. Mr. Lester was in the second wave of landings on Omaha Beach on D-Day. Mr. Schwing received a Silver Star for dragging a man to safety on Guadal-canal. These very humble men and many others like them stood tall when America needed them most. Their sto-ries are fascinating and an inspiration. They are my heroes. Mr. Lester recently died at the age of 89. Mr. Schwing has turned 90.

My judicial hero is federal District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker—I think she is terrific.


Hon. JaMes d. HuMpHrey

By jAmEs f. mAGuirE | stAff AttornEy, stAtE Court ADministrAtionSIdEBar

WhAT ArE yOur hObbIES Or fAvOrITE lEISurE ACTIvITIES, ANd hOW dId yOu fIrST GET INvOlvEd?

All my life I had wanted to learn how to fly-fish. When I was first elected as Circuit Court Judge my father-in-law gave me a fly-rod. Fly-fishing has since become a passion. All of our vacations are spent fly-fishing in the mountains of North Carolina, Tennessee or the west.

I have also become involved in outdoor cooking. Several years ago my wife, Heidi, gave me an outdoor smoker and I now cook for all holidays and family events. One of my specialties is Apple Wood Smoked Pork Shoulder.

WhAT ArE yOur fAvOrITE bOOkS, ANd hAvE yOu rEAd ANy rECENTly, Or ArE rEAdING NOW, ThAT yOu WOuld rECOmmENd?

Some books that I have read over the years which remain with me are John Hersey’s Hiroshima; Miracle at Philadel-phia by Catherine Drinker Bowen; and the Reagan Diaries by Ronald Reagan. I am currently reading Robert Graves' I Claudius. And of course, I read my fly-fishing magazines every month.

WhErE dId yOu GrOW up ANd hOW WOuld yOu dESCrIbE yOur ChIldhOOd?

I grew up on a small farm in Bright, Indiana. We grew tobacco and raised hogs and cattle. One of my best memories as a child is of going with my father to the farm of a neighbor named “Red” on Sunday afternoons. All the local farmers came to Red’s to sit around a wood stove and tell stories. Even though I heard a lot of things I probably shouldn’t have at my young age, I thought it was great. My favorite activities as a child were squirrel hunt-ing and, of course, fishing.

dO yOu hAvE A fAvOrITE quOTE(S)?

“This too shall pass.”

WhErE IS yOur fAvOrITE vACATION SpOT?

No question, our favorite vacation spot is Yellowstone National Park. The wildlife, the scenery, and the geysers make it is the most interesting place I have ever seen. Of course, it is also one of the greatest fly-fishing locations in the country.

dO yOu hAvE A fAvOrITE mEAl, rECIpE ANd rESTAurANT?

My wife, Heidi, has become an excel-lent cook over our twenty-five years of marriage. For major events, family events and holidays I normally cook the main course and my wife cooks all the side dishes. Some of our favorite meals include grilled halibut with a lemon caper sauce; bacon wrapped grilled pork tenderloin with orange cherry sauce; smoked turkey; pulled pork shoulder; grilled salmon and beer can chicken (call me for the recipe).

We sometimes go out for dinner to our local Mexican and Chinese restaurants. We also save our change in a large jar and for special occasions go to Mc-Cormick and Schmick’s Restaurant in Cincinnati for seafood.

Photo. Courtesy of Judge humphrey.

fishing Judge. Judge humphrey proudly displays a brook trout he caught while fly fishing in North Carolina's tuckasegee river.


The legal status of court employees is both unique and confounding. A myriad of statutes require the counties to provide space and funding so that the courts may operate. The circuit and superior courtrooms are the showpiece of most county facilities. The healthcare and pension benefits provided to court employees are the benefits provided to other county employees. The court employees receive a paycheck and W-2 from the county that looks like every other county employee’s payroll infor-mation. When a county employee has questions about benefits, the employee most likely goes to the county auditor, and the county auditor may well have distributed a county employee handbook to the court employees. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then you are probably looking at a duck. Except in this case, you’re not.

Court employees are not county em-ployees, despite receiving a W-2 from the county, working in a county-owned building, and using the county health-care plan. They are also not regular state employees. They are public em-ployees of the judiciary, also known as judicial or judicial circuit employees.

Article 3, § 1 of the Indiana Constitu-tion establishes that the judiciary is an independent state power separate from

the legislative and the executive depart-ments. The judges of appellate courts, circuit courts and superior courts are constitutional officials of the state, not of the counties. As set forth in Woods v. Michigan City, 940 F.2d 275, 279 (7th Cir. 1991):

Indiana law reveals that judges of Indiana's circuit, superior and county courts are judicial officers of the state judicial system: they are not county officials. Pruitt v. Kimbrough, 536 F.supp. 764, 766 (N.d.Ind.), aff'd 705 F.2d 462 (7th Cir.1982). County courts in Indiana are exclusively units of the judicial branch of the state's constitu-tional system. Id. Also see Par-sons v. Bourff, 739 F.supp. 1266 (s.d.Ind.1989), and State ex rel. McClure v. Marion Superior Court, 239 Ind. 472, 158 N.E.2d 264 (1959).

As either elected or appointed consti-tutional state officials, each judge in Indiana has the power to select staff for the judge’s own court, and each judge has the power to fire court staff without review or approval by any other body. Without this power, the judiciary would not be a truly independent department or branch of government. Along with

the power to hire and fire is the power to set terms and conditions of employment.

The principle of the right of the judi-ciary to set its own terms and condi-tions of employment has been repeat-edly addressed in Indiana. 1963 OAG No. 42 was written in response to an inquiry as to whether a statute regulat-ing city employees applied to employees of the city judiciary. Attorney General Edwin K. Steers determined that the legislature did not intend that executive branch powers should be extended to control of court officers and employees, and that responsibility for court staff rests with the judge of the court. The opinion relied on the case of State ex. rel Bailey v. Webb, 21 N.E. 2d 421, 422-23 (1939).

This fundamental principle was re-peated more recently in the case of State v. Monfort, 723 N.E.2d 407, 411 (Ind. 2000). The Court wrote:

the judiciary is one of the three co-equal branches of government and its independence is essential to an effective running of the gov-ernment. see Board of Comm’rs v. Stout, 136 Ind. 53, 58-59, 35 N.E. 683, 685 (1893) (Courts are an integral part of the government, and entirely independent; deriving their powers directly from the con-stitution, in so far as such powers are not inherent in the very nature of the judiciary.)

In particular, it has been held in a va-riety of contexts that the legislature cannot interfere with the discharge of judicial duties, or attempt to con-trol judicial functions, or otherwise dictate how the judiciary conducts its order of business.

EmployEEHandbooks:Neither fish nor fowl

Illus

trat

ion.

@Ve

ctee

zy.c

om/m

embe

rs/t

anch

oman

By BrEnDA roDEhEffEr DirECtor, offiCE AnD EmPloymEnt lAw sErViCEs, stAtE Court ADministrAtion


BrENda'S BaILIWICK

Despite the Constitutional provision and the clear case law upholding the principle of judicial independence, the question of court versus executive authority continues to arise, particularly at the county level.

The peculiar status of court employees causes unusual results, particularly in litigation. At least one court has held that in an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, both the state and the county may be liable. Because the court is a distinct unit, there are federal decisions that exempt most courts from liability under the various discrimina-tion laws because the small number of employees will not meet the minimum threshold. This is another reason to maintain the separateness of the court unit from the rest of the county. On the other hand, being a small work unit does not negate constitutional rights and other laws, such as the Family Medical Leave Act, which may apply regardless of the separation of judiciary and executive.

Because their employees are neither state nor county employees, courts have the ability to manage their offices more efficiently and provide more options for management. This independent status also gives the court an opportunity to discuss with employees the unique privilege and responsibility of being a judicial employee, as well as discussing the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to judicial employees.

Because courts are independent, most courts will find it beneficial to have their own employee handbooks; however, some courts find it is a good option to adopt the county employee handbook for the sake of consistency. The decision depends upon how well crafted the county handbook is and

what the judge prefers as far as hours of work and other provisions related to the functioning of the court. Before adopt-ing a county handbook, it is important to review carefully and make certain that the handbook does not take away necessary control from the court. For example, for both practical and policy reasons, a court would not want to adopt a provision that allows the county commissioners to hold a hearing when a court employee is fired. There could also be provisions in a general county handbook that conflict with the Judicial Code of Conduct.

If there are no objectionable provi-sions, and the court decides to adopt the county handbook, the court should do so by letter to the County Com-missioners. This action will preserve the court’s own powers and remind the commissioners of the court’s independent authority. A letter might state: “Indiana County Circuit Court has determined to adopt and apply the provisions of the Indiana County Employee Handbook for court employ-ees. The Court reserves the right to withdraw its adoption of the Handbook at any time without notice. The Court may also supplement and/or amend portions of the Handbook with the Court’s specific provisions.” A warn-ing: if the responsible judge does not notify the court’s employees of the deci-sion to adopt or not adopt the county handbook, employees may assume that the county employee handbook applies to them. This wrong assumption can cause problems for both the judge and the employees. Even if the decision is to have no handbook at all, employees need to have the guidance of knowing the judge’s decision.

If a judge needs assistance and advice in reviewing and determining

whether to adopt the county handbook, contact Brenda Rodeheffer

at (317) 234-3936 or [email protected].

marion County Judges announced the results of their election of new officers.

the Executive Committee is: Judge John hanley, Presiding Judge, Judge david Certo, Judge Becky Pierson-treacy and Judge marc rothenberg.

the new Criminal term chair is Judge linda Brown. the new Civil term chair is Judge ted sosin.

relatively simple hearing, such as dissolving a marriage or modifying child support, the judge may lead the parties through the process by asking questions such as, “What is your gross income? How many children do you have? Do you have day care costs for those children?” Judges are permitted by this Rule “to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants [have] the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard” (See Comment 4, Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.2).

Judges should be aware that Indiana Code Section 31-19-2-2(a) provides that an Indiana resident who seeks to adopt a child under eighteen years of age may “by an at-torney of record” file a petition for adoption. Adoptions are one type of action for which self-representa-tion may not be authorized.

The Indiana Supreme Court has established a Self-Service Legal Center on the Indiana judicial website to ensure access to the judicial system by providing basic resources to self-represented indi-viduals at courts.in.gov/selfservice. Judges should have this informa-tion available to any individual appearing before them who is considering self-representation.

Best PracticesCoNtINuEd From PAGE 7

SPOTLIGHT

Illus

trat

ion.

@Ve

ctee

zy.c

om/m

embe

rs/t

anch

oman


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

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. Randall T. Shepard Chief Justice, Indiana Supreme Court

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

Brenda Rodeheffer Director of Employment Law Services, State Court Administration

James F. Maguire Staff Attorney, State Court Administration

Elizabeth Daulton Court Reform Grants Project Manager, State Court Administration

Lindsey Borschel Web Coordinator, State Court Admin. / JTAC

plEASE CIrCulATE TO CO-WOrkErS

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

stay connected


Indiana Court Times 20.1

Documents

Transcript of Indiana Court Times 20.1