How should a judge react to commentary in a motion, brief, or other pleading that is inappropriate, scandalous, or just has no place in a public record? Trial court judges are very familiar with these types of writings: when the husband accuses the wife of having an affair; the wife accuses the husband of molesting the children; or one lawyer calls the other lawyer a liar and a cheat.

Remember, Trial Rule 12(F) can be a judge’s best friend. That rule states that a trial court, upon its own initiative, may order stricken from any pleading “any insufficient claim or defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

When confronted with an attorney or attorneys who use inappropriate commentary or are doing battle through written pleadings, a judge must deal with the issue as soon as possible. The situation could quickly accelerate into more scurrilous writings. The judge should call both attorneys into chambers and advise them that this type of unprofessional action will not be tolerated.

What should a presiding judge do if he or she is the target of the written attack? First, take a deep breath. Do not act in anger or with emotion. The trial judge has the tools available to address the situation under Trial Rule 12(F), by using direct contempt power, or both.

Making disparaging or inflammatory remarks about the judge in court pleadings can constitute direct contempt. Kerr v. State, 141 N.E. 308 (Ind. 1923); Jacobsen v. State, 384 N.E.2d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). Although the specifics regarding direct contempt proceedings are beyond this column’s scope, judges should exercise caution if they delay deleting the inappropriate material from the record and scheduling a hearing. Time is a factor, and the longer the wait, the less likely the issue may be a matter of direct contempt.

Judges should also consider allowing a different judge to hear the contempt proceedings, especially when the situation is extremely serious. If someone has made very personal remarks against the judge or a family member, perhaps the judge should let a judicial officer who is not personally affected hear the contempt proceedings.

The justice system may be more damaged by scandalous or inappropriate commentary in written materials filed with the court than from comments made in court. These documents are part of the court’s permanent record. Judges should remember to wisely use the tools available to them when dealing with inappropriate written materials.

I recently had an opportunity to speak with eight ICLEO law students who were hired in 2011 as summer interns at the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Indiana Tax Court and the Office of the Public Defender. They were eager to share their experiences.

Brandon Skates, a second year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, worked in the chambers of Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Terry A. Crone and really enjoyed his time there. He said: “I love to learn more than anything. Every case presented a new challenge and a new aspect of the law requiring my research. I had to understand the law and the issues before presenting a draft opinion that met the high standards of Judge Crone and his law clerks.”

Viorel Ciobanu, a third year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, had an extraordinary summer experience at the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Indiana Tax Court. He appreciated the diversity of the Courts’ summer clerks and reported to me: “Hoosiers with Ghanaian, Korean, Vietnamese, and Eastern European roots had the opportunity to harmoniously work for the benefit of the people of Indiana under the leadership of our illustrious Indiana jurists.” He admired the commitment of the judges and law clerks to public service and the example that they set for their community.

The Court of Appeals took interns on field trips to expose them to different areas of the law. Andrew Duncan, a second year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, gained new insight into his future. Duncan said: “Because of these field trips and working at the Indiana Court of Appeals, I realize that I would like to work as a lawyer in the public or non-profit sector where I feel I can help people the most. My internship has been a wonderful learning experience.”

Jheremy Perkins, a third year law student at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, agreed with Duncan. He said: “The memorable and inspirational moments were plentiful this summer. I researched various issues of substantive law and drafted several opinions, including some for publication. My greatest experience was the opportunity to pick the brains of many Indiana judges. We discussed the decision-making process and current trends in the law. These judges offered career and professional advice and gave us the opportunity to make invaluable connections. In addition to the judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals, we met with Marion County trial court Judges Jose D. Salinas and Mark D. Stoner; Indiana Tax Court Judge Martha Blood Wentworth; Indiana Southern District Federal Court Judges Sarah Evans Barker, Tanya Walton Pratt, and Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.” Perkins is certain that the ICLEO Summer Intern Program will provide contacts, friends, and experiences that will last a lifetime.

Trinh Vo, a third year law student at Valparaiso University School of Law, focused on the substantive skills she gained during her internship. She reflected: “My summer internship with the Indiana Court of Appeals has made significant improvements in my writing skills. I want to emulate the law clerks’ clarity and consistency in writing.”

Amy Beard echoed the thoughts of the other fellows. Beard, a second year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, was enriched by her summer clerkship working for Judge Martha Blood Wentworth in the Indiana Tax Court. In her words: “This opportunity was one of my best experiences. I cannot begin to articulate how much I learned. I spent the summer assisting Judge Wentworth in drafting opinions, conducting legal research, and writing memos. It was an honor and a privilege to work for the Indiana Tax Court and I am so proud that one day I will be joining this legal community. The skills that I gained throughout this summer clerkship will remain with me during my law school journey over the next two years, and throughout my legal career.”

Amber Benson, a third year law student at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, and Stepheni Ennis, a second year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, had somewhat different experiences. Both students worked in the State Public Defender’s Office where they helped attorneys prepare appeals in capital and non-capital cases. Benson said: “The capital unit attorneys educated me on the sometimes arbitrary administration of capital punishment. I will remember forever my travels throughout Indiana participating in mitigation investigations and client visits at Indiana state prisons. I am lucky to have spent the summer with the crème of the legal profession.”

Ennis agreed, saying: “It was an amazing and incomparable experience that allowed me to gain great insight into criminal law. The internship gave me practical experience and a passion for working with indigent clients.”

All of the students reported they were grateful for the opportunity to do meaningful work and truly enjoyed their ICLEO summer intern experience, and they look forward to becoming a part of the Indiana legal community.

On Jan. 11, 2012, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard delivered his 25th and final 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 2012 address are available online. Visit courts.in.gov/supreme/2338.htm for all addresses since 1988.

The yesterday of Indiana’s courts lasted largely unchanged over decades. Our courts were a collection of unconnected silos. There were few agreed ways of conducting the court’s business. For much of our history, courthouse rules and practices varied so much that even lawyers, and certainly citizens, could rightly think they were crossing the state line when they simply went to the next county.

Over time Indiana’s courts have become less like a collection of Lone Rangers and more like a group of united colleagues. The legislature created unified courts in urban areas, and it began to support collaboration between judges.

The movement towards collaboration was visible in 2011 when the legislature created unified courts in Henry, Clark, and Madison counties. Judges and county officials concluded they could be more effective by working together. We have also adopted rules to consolidate multiple probation departments into one.

Joint Action for Families and Children

You could call this growing commitment to joint effort “court reform” or “tax dollar-efficiency,” but it makes a difference in people’s lives. A generation ago, courts heard disputes about families and children and domestic violence much the same way as cases on property ownership or breach of contract. The techniques had not grown alongside the size of the problems.

That has changed dramatically. Indiana’s ability to care for abused or neglected children is light years ahead from a decade ago. Governor Daniels launched an agency that focuses solely on children, whose caseworkers have enough training and time to do the job right, at state, instead of local, expense.

When children went to court in the old days, too often no one spoke for them because parents were so focused on their own conflict. Today, Indiana’s courts have volunteer Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) who speak just for the best interests of the child. The Daniels Administration and the legislature gave the judiciary the resources to recruit and support an army to speak for children. Indiana has more local CASA programs than any state but Texas. In 2011 we trained the largest number of new volunteer advocates ever—1,010. And the number of children awaiting assignment of a CASA is half what it was this time last year.

For particularly acrimonious divorces involving children, family mediation is available. Allen County Judge Tom Felts first launched this initiative and legislation authorizes its use statewide. It is now in 33 counties.

In the cases involving the worst threats, we have more tools than ever for combating domestic violence. Previously when a court issued a protection order, only paper copies existed, making it tougher for police to enforce them. Now judicial orders are sent immediately and electronically to law enforcement. We have also trained victim advocates in women’s shelters to help victims in 61 counties file requests for protective orders electronically.

Last year we were working on a way to send text or email messages to victims when a protective order is actually served on the abuser, a particularly dangerous moment. Last year we sent notices to 9300 victims. These improvements literally save lives.

More Effective Criminal Justice

When I was a trial judge, judges mostly had two sentencing options: prison and probation. In the intervening 25 years, everyone in the criminal justice system has wrestled continually with the twin challenges of exploding prison populations and persistent recidivism.

But ingenuity has produced a different world: 49 drug courts, highly professional probation departments with the time and tools to monitor tens of thousands of felons, 56 court drug and alcohol programs, the first veterans courts, delinquency projects run jointly with school corporations and social workers, and the new risk assessment tools that help identify the most effective sanction for individual offenders. Last year we evaluated 134,000 offenders using this 21st century evaluation technique.

Members of the Indiana House and Senate attended Chief Justice Shepard's final State of the Judiciary address in the Indiana House Chambers.

Courts and Healthy Commerce

Among the heart-warming aspects of stories written recently has been commentary describing how Indiana’s courts are not a barrier to economic development. Businesses shy away from some states because of the litigation climate.

One way the legal system can be a barrier has to do with sheer complexity, but Indiana sometimes produces simplicity. For example, to decide what evidence is admissible in court, for 175 years Indiana followed the ancient common law system of evidence. People confronted with these issues had to search thousands of pages of opinions for guidance.

We’ve replaced those millions of words with the Indiana Rules of Evidence, just 24 pages covering everything from hearsay to when you need the original document or just a copy.

Debates still occur about what is admissible. But lawyers and judges now can know which rule applies and can focus on exploring how to apply the rule to a particular situation. Citizens who find themselves in court without a lawyer can also use this relatively simple roadmap.

Calling such a reform “modernization” passes over that it holds down the cost of litigation and improves citizen access. The same is true of the Jury Rules (a recent study ranked Indiana fourth on the fairness of juries—they’re drawn from the most inclusive in the country) and the Plain English Jury Instructions (which give jurors a fighting chance to escape the legalese).

The other barrier is partially organizational and partially mental frame of reference. Do people in courts understand that how they perform affects a state’s economic climate? That the work we’ve done on mortgage foreclosure proves our bona fides on that point. Led by Lieutenant Governor Skillman, with energetic participation by Attorney General Zoeller, Indiana has been working to revise statutes and develop new court practices that give homeowners a better chance to re-write their mortgages and stay in their homes.

The judiciary has been working to focus all these techniques in the place where it really matters, the courthouses. A new package of best practices is in place in the 20 counties that represent two-thirds of the foreclosures. It turns out that these new processes multiply the chance a homeowner might achieve a successful workout by six times!

A Better Legal Profession

Over two decades ago, Indiana became a state where lawyers have to complete continuing legal education because lawyers thought it would be good for them and for clients. The Indiana State Bar Association’s original proposal left out judges, but judges insisted that we should impose on ourselves whatever we required of lawyers.

In 2011, continuing that same spirit, judges proposed that judges should have an even higher requirement than lawyers, and now we do.

What else is better about the lawyers and judges who make up Indiana’s legal profession? We have:

• improved bar admissions by adopting three new national exams., including one on ethics and one on problem solving
• created the country’s first joint program for impaired lawyers and judges;
• created the first statewide lawyer leadership academy, a project of the State Bar in which Justice Steven David is playing a leading role;
• created with your help, the Indiana Conference on Legal Education Opportunity and doubled the number of minority lawyers.

Is This Quality Work?

In addition to the whole judiciary, I do want to say a few words about the appellate courts. One way to measure quality is whether Indiana’s decisions are used by lawyers and judges in other states.

There was a time when Indiana stood near the top of where lawyers, scholars, and other judges looked for answers to legal problems. A study in 1912 examined how often state courts cited each other, and Indiana was fifth, following only New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California. Our ranking dipped over the years and by 1975 a study of the reputation of state supreme courts placed Indiana twenty-fifth.

That’s not the way it is today. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Margret Robb’s recent opinion about environment liability has been cited in Massachusetts and Texas, placed in a handbook on insurance law, explored by a law journal in Ohio, and cited by the American Law Institute. Supreme Court Justice Brent Dickson’s opinion on the use of risk assessment tools in criminal sentencing was described as the best piece of work anywhere. The Chief Justice of Nevada said to me, “We were so grateful for Justice Frank Sullivan’s opinion on gaming.”

This is, of course, grounds for professional pride, and it’s probably one reason why more people are voting in retention elections than ever before. But there’s a much more important reason. It is the value in the public sector of what George Will recently called “reasoned judgment.” Whether the disputes people bring to us are thoughtfully and honestly decided according to facts and law is crucial to a free society.

An Extraordinary Circle of Servant-Leaders

These are but the most evident trends from where we used to be to where we are going, and it is not humility but simple fact for me to say that the circle of people on the bench and in the bar who have been lending ingenuity and leadership is very broad. We are well served by people like:

• Lilly Judson, State Court Administration, and Mike Witte, of the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, who have both just finished terms leading national organizations.
• Justice Frank Sullivan has played a key role in bringing more minority law students into court clerkships and is now leading all of the bar’s efforts on ethics and professionalism.
• Judge Wayne Trockman of Evansville whose ground-breaking work in drug courts was recently honored by the National Association of Drug-Court Professionals.
• Judge John Surbeck of Fort Wayne, fairly called one of the inventors of re-entry courts, is literally in world-wide demand for his expertise.
• Jan Dickson was rightly recognized in November by the National Center for State Courts for having done more to help the families of judges than anyone, anywhere.
• Justice Robert Rucker, who chairs the National Bar Association‘s Judicial Council and whose career has been such an inspiration to others that the Lake County Commissioners recently renamed the facility in East Chicago the Robert D. Rucker Courthouse.

Extraordinary People Working on Important Causes

These extraordinary people and others have been engaged in making the system of justice work better tomorrow than it did yesterday and their collective commitment is the reason we can be confident about tomorrow. Here are some examples from 2011:

• After winning national awards for innovation from organizations like the Council of State Governments, JTAC, led by Mary DePrez, is just on the verge of deploying our new 21st century case management system in 40% of the state’s cases.
• Our program on civics, Courts in the Classroom, won its tenth award, from the National Council on Public History, for its success in helping teachers and students and the public understand courts and their government.
• Judge Diane Schneider of Lake County and others launched ground-breaking work on guardianships for those seniors without family to look after their affairs.

Lieutenant Governor Becky Skillman applauded the Chief Justice after the conclusion of the speech.

My Thanks for the Opportunity

To be engaged with so many splendid people in so many worthwhile causes has for me been a better career than one could ever imagine.

To deliver this final report standing in this place where so many valuable measures in support of a fairer society have found success is simply uplifting. To do this between Mitch Daniels and Becky Skillman is very poignant, for their friendship has enriched my life. And if a fellow imagined that he’d be linked in public memory on the back end of a hyphen, where the name at the front was Joe Kernan’s, how could you beat it?

Could there be a better cause, a more worthwhile way to “spend and be spent” in life than working toward greater justice?

The scores, if not hundreds of times when members of the General Assembly have been willing partners in improving the delivery of justice have been a great gift. Those many moments, and the demonstrated achievements by so many of the men and women on the bench and in the bar, are the reasons why I say that Indiana will have an even better system of justice tomorrow than it has today.

I have been able to carry my own role in all this with the steadfast love of Amy MacDonell. Amy and Mattie and I are enormously grateful for the countless generosities and acts of kindness we have received.

That graciousness, and simple observable facts, will allow me to leave the stage with full confidence that we will succeed in building Indiana as a safe and prosperous and decent place.

God Bless you, and God Bless Indiana.

Ind. Code § 33-35-1-1(a) permits a second or third class city or a town to establish or abolish a city or town court by ordinance every fourth year after 2006. An ordinance by a city or town establishing a court must be adopted not less than one year before the judge’s term will begin. Additionally, under subsection (d) of this section a city or town court in existence on January 1, 1986, may continue in operation until it is abolished by ordinance. When such a court is created or abolished, the city or town is required to give notice of its action to the Division of State Court Administration (Division).

Indiana welcomes two new town courts in 2012: the Town Court of Fishers in Hamilton County and the Town Court of Cumberland in Marion County. We also bid adieu to city courts in Aurora and Charleston, and town courts in North Manchester and Sellersburg on December 31, 2011 and Knightstown on October 31, 2011. The Monon Town Court was abolished effective January 1, 2011. The Alexandria City Court was abolished on December 5, 2011.

What do we do when they’re gone?

When a city or town court is abolished, the policy of both the Division and the State Board of Accounts is that the records of that court should be transferred to the clerk of the circuit court. Any unpaid tickets for cases that had been filed in the abolished court should be paid through the circuit court clerk. The outstanding tickets should be given new case numbers, but if possible to do so without creating conflicting case numbers, only the court identifier in the first group of characters in the case number should be changed. If changing only the court identifier would create conflicting case numbers, then an entirely new case number must be assigned.

Infraction and ordinance violation cases pending when a city or town court is abolished should be assigned to a circuit or superior court in the county that DOES NOT handle infraction and ordinance violation cases under the local caseload allocation plan.

The Division recommends that this procedure is the most straightforward way to number and track any outstanding infraction or ordinance cases from the abolished city or town court, and will reduce the possibility of conflicting case numbers. For example, an unpaid ticket from a town court with a case number of 91I01-1108-IF-000096 would be changed to 91C01-1108-IF-000096.

If it is necessary to transmit an SR 16 to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles under a new circuit or superior court case number to close an FTA or FTP that originated under a city or town court case number, and the FTA/FTP is not closed automatically due to the difference in the Court Case Number, a report will be generated by the BMV for manual review. If the BMV is satisfied that the SR 16 is a match to an existing FTA or FTP suspension, the BMV will manually close the suspension.

Misdemeanor cases that are pending at the time the city or town court is abolished should be assigned to the circuit or superior court(s) that handles misdemeanor cases under the local rule for assignment of criminal cases that is required by Ind. Criminal Rule 2.2.

Civil cases that are pending in a city court at the time the court is abolished should be assigned to a circuit or superior court that handles civil cases. When the case is assigned to a circuit or superior court, the case will retain the original case type that had been assigned to the case in the city court. Even if more than one court handles civil cases under the county’s caseload allocation rule, all of the civil cases transferred from the city court should be assigned to a single court in order to facilitate tracking.

All records, for which the retention periods have not expired under Ind. Administrative Rule 7, if maintained electronically, must be printed out and transferred to the clerk of the circuit court. The Record of Judgments and Orders (Order Book) must be maintained permanently for all case types. Chronological Case Summaries (CCS) for Infraction Cases and Ordinance Violation Cases must be maintained for 10 years after final disposition of the case. The CCS for all other case types must be maintained permanently.

If you have any questions or need any assistance, please contact the Division’s Record Manager, Tom Jones, at tom.jones@courts.IN.gov, and he will be happy to work with you to resolve any issues that may arise.

The report can be found online at http://courts.in.gov/admin/2865.htm.

The Judicial Service Report is made up of Volume 1: Judicial Year in Review; Volume 2: Caseload Statistics; Volume 3: Financial Report. The Probation Report includes Volume 1: Statewide Summary and Volume 2: Individual Department and County Data. Indiana Courts In Brief, a 16-page brochure, is also available to provide an overview of all reports.

Kimberly A. Jackson, Chair of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) Committee

Kimberly A. Jackson, Chair of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) Committee, received the Recovery Advocate of the Year Award. Jackson was honored for her dedication to JLAP and its mission to help lawyers and judges struggling with addiction and mental health, physical or age-related problems. The award was given by the Indiana Addictions Issues Coalition in connection with Mental Health America.

Jackson joined JLAP in 2003 as a volunteer and was appointed to the committee for 2004. She served as the committee’s Vice-Chair from 2008-2010. As a JLAP Monitor, Jackson works with lawyers on their individual recovery plan and helps them to retain or regain their license. She frequently speaks with groups of lawyers about addiction and recovery.

Jackson’s goal in volunteering is to make sure that everyone has a future to look forward to, despite their past experiences. She added that, “A person’s scars tell where they have been, not where they are going.”

Aside from Jackson’s dedicated work with JLAP, she is employed as a Clay County Deputy Prosecutor in the area of child support. She previously worked for Vigo County in Drug Court and DUI Court. In addition to her service with JLAP, Jackson serves on the Board of Directors for Terre Haute YMCA, the local Planned Parenthood and Henrietta’s House.

In August 2011, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the American Bar Association House of Delegates, and the National Association for Court Management approved a set of Model Time Standards for State Trial Courts. The standards are the product of a two-year review by the above organizations with the help of the National Center for State Courts, and support from a grant from the State Justice Institute.

Since the ABA first adopted time standards in 1968, it adopted time standards for other types of cases in 1976, updated them in 1984 and again in 1992. The Conference of State Court Administrators first established national time standards for state court cases in 1983.

Time standards are intended to establish parameters for the time required to dispose of cases from the date of filing to the date of disposition by entry of judgment. The model standards provide for a first tier time period within which 75 percent of the filed cases should be resolved; a second tier time period within which 90 percent of the filed cases should be resolved; and a third tier time period within which 98 percent of filed cases should be resolved. The 98 percent tier is meant to establish a backlog measure and to fix the maximum time that should be taken to decide and finalize all but the most highly complex cases.

The model time standards cover the full range of cases that are heard and decided by state trial courts, including all types of criminal, civil, family, juvenile and probate matters. Under the model standards, using criminal felonies as an example, 75% should be decided within 90 days; 90% within 180 days; and 98% within 365 days. The model standards are intended to establish a reasonable set of expectations for the courts, for lawyers, and for the general public. Model standards in criminal cases are also provided for misdemeanor, traffic and local ordinance, and habeas corpus and post-conviction proceedings.

The National Center for State Courts has published the standards, and the document can be found at:  http://tinyurl.com/modeltime

The new publication recognizes it is important for court leaders to create circumstances that will promote a high likelihood of success once time standards are adopted. It discusses in detail the adoption and use of model time standards, the measurement of court compliance with time standards, steps to promote compliance with the standards, and the relationship between time standards and court resources.

Over three quarters of the states have now adopted some case disposition time standards. Such standards set court performance goals, which courts then can measure through the CourTools performance measurement system developed by the National Center for State Courts. The CourTools system provides ways to evaluate ten different performance measures, among them being (1) time to disposition, (2) age of active pending caseload, (3) clearance rates for cases and (4) cost effective case processing. Many state court systems use a combination of weighted caseload measures, time standards and the CourTools performance measures to assess judicial resources and performance. Although Indiana has not adopted time standards for case disposition, a number of Indiana county court systems are working to implement some of the key CourTools performance measures within their jurisdictions.

Anyone interested in obtaining more information about model time standards may contact the National Center for State Courts at 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147 or may call 1-800-616-6164.

“The courthouse has been restored to its rightful place as the center of law and government,” remarked Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Ted R. Todd. The dome, cupola, and third floor of the 156-year-old courthouse, which was being painted in preparation for Madison’s Bicentennial celebration, were razed in a three-alarm fire on May 20, 2009. Twenty-four volunteer fire departments, comprising more than 200 firefighters, responded to this blaze, which raged well into the night.

Representatives from each of these fire departments and agencies were honored at the rededication ceremony on August 26, and commended on their efforts by Madison Fire Chief Steve Horton. Without these brave volunteers, the damage to the courthouse would have been devastating, and most records would likely not have survived. County Commissioner Julie Berry also honored the past and present Jefferson County employees who put in countless hours to secure and organize the court records.

The May 20, 2009 fire took nearly 1 million gallons of water to extinguish and burned well into the night. (Photo by Jessica Lock, celsius.ws)

Jefferson Superior Court Judge Alison Frazier, who held office for only 4 months before the fire, thanked Chief Justice Shepard for his support and encouragement, commenting on his deep and demonstrated commitment to courthouse preservation. She also remarked on the tremendous outpouring of support from judges, clerks, and agencies throughout the state. “As soon as they heard of the fire, judges were calling and asking, ‘What can we do?’ They offered us their courtrooms, staff, everything.”

Main Source Bank allowed the Clerk’s Office to occupy one floor in its Main Street location for more than two years, rent-free. Superior Court proceedings took place in Judge Frazier’s former law office on Second Street, while Circuit Court proceedings were held in the Venture Out Business Center on Madison’s hilltop.

At a completed cost of approximately $8 million, the “new, old” courthouse remains true to its roots. “You can’t tell what is original and what isn’t,” said County Commissioner Julie Berry. The reconstruction has also incorporated symbolic objects recovered from the flames. The dome’s original clock is on display inside the courthouse, while the restored courthouse bell, which fell into the building during the fire, holds a permanent place on the southwest lawn.

The rededication ceremony included music, a ribbon-cutting, and honors to the many firefighters and volunteers who helped to stop the blaze.

Chief Justice Shepard spoke about the transition of county courthouses into the twenty-first century. Historically, he said, the three tallest buildings in a town were a church, a grain elevator, and a courthouse. These in turn represented the faith that caused settlers to cross mountains and rivers; the hope for prosperity; and the inspiration to create justice in society.

“This grand old courthouse is a sound structure once again,” said County Commissioner Tom Petrokowski.
The rededication concluded with a ribbon-cutting ceremony, and the courthouse officially opened for business at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, August 26.

The official Indiana Supreme Court cases start in 1817, but the State Archives had 18 boxes of cases dating to the territorial years 1791 to 1817. Upon learning that it had started the important preservation of these old cases, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard offered the Court’s moral and fiscal support in order to assure the preservation of these important pieces of Indiana history.

Volunteers at the State Archives help to review and catalog case materials and enter information into a database similar to a card catalog system.

An improved catalog was one of the key factors of this effort. “We originally had to rely on very inadequate indexes to look up these cases,” said Dr. Alan January, Director of Patron Services, Indiana State Archives. “Cases before 1868 had been arranged in alphabetical order by only the first defendant named, which, of course, was fine if you knew the name. The people who were searching for the second party had to look through thousands of files, which was not very easy.”

Getting through the categorization of the old documents was only the first step. In that era, coal was the primary fuel used for heating, so many documents were covered in soot. Surprisingly, very few of the cases were completely ruined or in need of major restoration and the restorers were pleased with how well most of them looked, considering that they were as old as or older than the State of Indiana.

click to enlarge

Maps and pictures that had been entered into evidence as part of these cases have now been carefully cleaned and preserved in display cases. Among the exhibits is a layout of the first Indiana State Prison in Jeffersonville (which housed both men and women) and ticket prices for the Jeffersonville railroad.
Dr. January said interns and volunteers—many of them students from Butler University and Indiana University–Purdue University–Indianapolis (IUPUI)—have been a huge help and “extremely enthusiastic” in the preservation process. They remove the case files from their original packaging, untie the pinkish ribbons that bind the case materials and, wearing white cotton gloves, use “soot sponges” for cleaning.

“The gloves help, but we always somehow manage to still get soot all over us,” said Abigail Kennedy, a volunteer from IUPUI.

The students find the heaviest things they can—usually bricks—to place on top of the documents so they will lay flat. The cases are placed in acid free folders which are put into acid free boxes. They are then stored and protected in the climate and humidity controlled vault of the archives.

Elizabeth Hague, the Archives’ conservation technician, steps in when documents require more than just a soot sponge. She cleans and preserves many of the maps and drawings found in the cases. Hague receives all of the “logs”—the court cases that are rolled so thickly that they literally resemble a log made of paper. She dehumidifies them so they can roll out more easily and then places them in large presses to keep them flat. When any document needs just a bit more attention, she takes to her tools: strips of Japanese mending tissue and methyl cellulose, which patch the document back together.

Many people have been drawn to the archives because of the historical significance of the cases. Dr. January said there has been particular interest in the slavery cases, women’s suffrage, and early challenges to segregated schools. Hague has her own favorite cases, including one divorce proceeding where the husband was declared insane and sent to the state hospital.

These documents have stirred the most interest for historians, genealogists and families looking to trace their roots, Dr. January said. As soon as the first cases went online, he said that requests increased a “hundredfold” for cases involving wills and estates. Susan Brook came all the way from Florida to visit the archives. After seeing family names in the online index of court cases, she traveled to Indiana to see in person the documents about her ancestors Josiah Harbaugh, Thomas Cade, and Jacob H. Powers.

Significant progress has been made on this daunting project, but there is still plenty of work ahead. The staff of the State Archives Division is eagerly forging ahead to make publicly and easily available a wealth of historic information about Indiana and its residents.

To search the database of historic cases, go to courts.IN.gov/cases and choose “Supreme Court Archive Search.”

Randall T. Shepard, Chief Justice of Indiana, welcomed the journalists with remarks regarding the Indiana Supreme Court and the importance of press coverage of the courts. Madison Superior Court Judge Dennis Carroll and Vanderburgh Superior Court Judge Wayne Trockman presented the plenary session on problem-solving courts, speaking about the role of mental health courts and re-entry courts. Other sessions were dedicated to court structure, funding, juvenile jurisdiction, sentencing, death penalty cases, grand jury proceedings and statistical information maintained by the Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration.

The Community Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana assisted with planning and recruiting participating judges. Judges who served as faculty were Gail Bardach of Hamilton Superior Court, Mary Beth Bonaventura of Lake Superior Court’s Juvenile Division, Roger Duvall of Scott Circuit Court, Robert Altice of Marion Superior Court, Maria Granger of Floyd Superior Court, Senior Judge Barbara Harcourt , and John Baker of the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Judges also showed their support for the program by the Indiana Judges Association’s co-sponsorship of lunch with the Hoosier State Press Association Foundation. Keynote speaker Jerrianne Hayslett, the former Los Angeles Superior Court Media Liaison, talked about her work with the courts and her book Anatomy of a Trial: Public Loss, Lessons Learned from ‘The People v. O.J. Simpson.’ The Indiana State Bar Association sponsored coffee and breaks throughout the event. At the end of the day, Indiana Supreme Court Justices Steven David and Brent Dickson welcomed the journalists to a “behind-the-scenes” tour of the historic courtroom and law library in the State House. The Times of Northwest Indiana investigative reporter, Marisa Kwiatkowski, summed up the day by saying, “We rarely get the opportunity to attend training sessions anymore because of budget constraints, so this was very much appreciated. It was helpful both to reporters without any background in court coverage and to people like myself, who have experience covering the courts.”