In the twenty-five years since that appointment, Randall T. Shepard has continued to make history and to garner national respect for Indiana’s judicial system. In addition to authoring hundreds of opinions (many touching on issues of importance to other states), Chief Justice Shepard guided Indiana’s judiciary by launching and encouraging new programs aimed at improving the system.

With his recent retirement from the bench, this has left many to wonder—what comes next? Who will be the next Chief Justice and how will he shape Indiana’s judicial future? Once again, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission has taken on the spotlight, and the work that the Commission does and how it accomplishes those tasks have become topics of interest.

How will the next chief justice be selected?

Filling the vacancies created by Chief Justice Shepard’s departure (to the Court and to the office of chief justice) actually is a two-step process. First, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission had to submit the names of three nominees to the Governor for him to appoint the next justice of the Indiana Supreme Court. See Ind. Const., Art. 7, Sect. 10. The next step is for the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission to meet to decide who, among the current justices of the Court (including the new justice), will become the chief justice. Once selected, the Chief Justice will serve a five-year term as the chief justice. See Ind. Const., Art. 7, Sect. 3.

Typically, the Nominating Commission’s procedure for selecting the chief justice starts with publicly interviewing all of the justices (regardless of whether the justice is seeking the office) to hear each one’s thoughts about what qualities are important for a chief justice to possess. After those interviews are completed, the Commission meets in an executive session to consider the qualifications of those justices who have indicated an interest in the office. The Commission then votes in a public session for the chief justice.

Indiana is the only state in which a judicial nominating commission selects the chief justice. See American Judicature Society Website, “Methods of Judicial Selection” at tinyurl.com/judicial-selection. In most states, the chief justice is selected by the members of the court, by popular election, or by gubernatorial appointment.

Members of the Judicial Nominating Commission concluding an interview with Mark S. Massa (left), who was later chosen as a finalist and appointed as the 107th Indiana Supreme Court Justice by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Who are the individuals responsible for making the chief justice selection?

The composition of the Nominating Commission is governed by Article 7, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution and I.C. § 33-27-2 et seq. The Commission consists of seven members: three attorney members, three non-lawyer members, and the Chief Justice or a Justice of the Supreme Court whom the Chief Justice may designate. Currently, Justice Brent Dickson is serving as the Chairman of the Commission.

An attorney and a non-attorney representative are chosen from each of the three geographic districts of the Court of Appeals. I.C. §§ 33-27-2-1; 33-27-2-2. Attorney members serve three-year staggered terms, after being elected by the attorneys in their respective districts. I.C. § 33-27-2-2. The Governor appoints the non-attorney members to serve three-year terms. I.C. § 33-27-2-1.

First District Representatives

Molly Kitchell grew up in Kokomo, and then she moved to New England before settling down in Boone County. She obtained a B.A. in Sociology from Purdue University and then obtained an M.S. in Occupational Therapy from the University of Indianapolis, graduating first in the class for both her undergraduate and graduate programs. After graduation, she worked as an occupational therapist, primarily in the area of neurological and psychological rehabilitation. She and her husband, Ryan, have four children, and for the past ten years her primary focus has been raising them. In her spare time, she serves on the Board of Directors for the Governor’s Interagency Coordinating Council for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities. Her term on the Commission expires 12/31/13.

James O. McDonald, Esq., grew up on a farm and continues to live on a working farm in western Vigo County. He was admitted to the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law when it was solely a night school. While going to law school, he worked in the office of Lieutenant Governor Richard Folz and then clerked for the Indiana Court of Appeals. Since 1972, he has practiced law in Terre Haute, concentrating on litigation of personal injury and business disputes for individuals and small businesses. His term expires 12/31/12.

Second District Representatives

Fred McCashland, a Marion County resident, is a retired educator from Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. He obtained his B.A. in American History and American Government from Iona College and received a M.A. in American Government and International Relations from the University of Notre Dame. During his thirty-four year career at Brebeuf, he taught American history and government, chaired the social studies department, and served as an academic counselor. Other positions he served while at Brebeuf included Director of Development, Dean of Students, assistant to the President, and then President for two years. His term on the Commission expires 12/31/12.

William E. Winingham, Jr., Esq., is a partner at Wilson Kehoe & Winingham in Indianapolis. After graduating from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, he worked as a deputy prosecutor in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office for three years, and then served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for three years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana. For the last twenty-five years, he has been with the civil litigation firm of Wilson Kehoe Winingham, LLC, focusing on plaintiffs’ personal injury work. His term expires 12/31/13.

Third District Representatives

D. Jean Northenor, a Kosciusko County resident, is a retired executive from Lake City Bank. She began her eighteen-year career with the bank in the marketing department and ended it as the Executive Vice President in charge of marketing, human resources, maintenance, and construction. She served two years on the Lake City Bank’s Board of Directors before retiring in 2003. In the 1980s, she also spearheaded the Kosciusko Leadership Academy to encourage young people to cultivate their leadership skills and to get involved in public service. Her term with the Commission expires 12/31/14.

John D. Ulmer, Esq., is a former partner at Yoder Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham, LLP, in Goshen and presently serves as an attorney of counsel for the firm. He practices general trial work, focusing on personal injury and insurance defense litigation. He graduated with distinction from Indiana University Maurer School of Law and, while in law school, served on the Board of Editors for the Indiana Jaw Journal. He previously served as an Elkhart County deputy prosecutor and later, after leaving the office, was appointed to act as a special deputy prosecuting attorney on the Ford Pinto trial. He served in the Indiana House of Representatives from 1998 to 2008. His term on the Commission expires 12/31/14.

What factors does the Nominating Commission consider when evaluating a candidate?

Under Indiana Code § 33-27-3-2, the Commission is required to consider each candidate’s legal education, legal writings, reputation in the practice of law, physical ability to do the job, financial interests (for conflict-of-interest purposes), public service activities, and other pertinent information the Commission feels is important to select the most qualified candidates. As may be gleaned from the Commission’s questions during interviews, other factors also may be considered, in varying degrees of importance, such as an applicant’s trial or appellate advocacy background, administrative experience, pro bono commitment, ability to contribute to the diversity of the court, and other special professional talents.

When selecting a chief justice, other factors also may take on greater importance. For instance, given the number of speeches a chief justice delivers, a justice-candidate’s communication skills may be a significant factor. Likewise, factors such as the justice-candidate’s leadership skills, reputation for collegiality and consensus building, organizational management skills, vision, and ability to serve as a role model for the Court also may be influential considerations.

Just as 1987 proved to be a year of significance for Indiana, 2012 holds similar promises. As the Judicial Nominating Commission prepares for the business of selecting the next leader of our state’s judiciary, the hope is that the members will continue with Indiana’s historic and winning tradition. Having worked with this group for some time now, I am confident that they are up to the task. We are all in good hands and should be proud of what our State has to offer the national legal landscape.

Related Article: Indiana Merit Selection and the “Missouri Plan”

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard gives an emotional goodbye to Supreme Court employees during a staff-hosted retirement celebration. (Photo by Lindsey Borschel)

See photos from Chief Justice Shepard’s Retirement Ceremony on Flickr

Editor’s Note: We bid adieu and bon voyage in this issue of Court Times to our leader as he embarks on the next leg of his remarkable life journey and career. We have no adequate words to express our deep gratitude and warm admiration for all he has done in the 25 years that he has served as Indiana’s Chief Justice.

Because he has had such a lasting impact on the trial judges in Indiana, we are printing a tribute to him delivered by the Honorable Charles F. Pratt, Judge, Allen Superior Court, that includes the words and observations of some of these judges. Judge Pratt spoke these words on April 14, 2010 in Indianapolis during the presentation of the American Judicature Society’s Sixth Annual Dwight D. Opperman Award for Judicial Excellence to Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. An excerpted version of Judge Pratt’s remarks follows.

Ours is a state about which we have much to boast. Yet it often goes against our Hoosier roots to do so. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard is no exception and as we celebrate the Dwight D. Opperman Award, he will quickly state that his achievement is actually a reflection of Indiana’s judiciary. However, it is clearly because of his leadership that we Indiana Judges have been able to envision a better judiciary for our state.

Included in the qualities required to be recognized with the prestigious Dwight D. Opperman Award is the ability to reinforce collegial ties within the judicial branch. As Indiana trial judges can tell you, the hallmark of the Chief Justice’s gifts is his ability to engage in what can be best characterized as Collegial Leadership—a leadership that recognizes that we are his colleagues, working together to improve our collective and individual service to Indiana citizens.

Randall T. Shepard is sworn into office in 1985 by the late Gov. Robert D. Orr.

Through his leadership, new reforms and innovations have become the norm for Indiana. These reforms put our state at the forefront in many areas.

In any given year over 300 Indiana judicial officers regularly meet in various committees to consider improvements in our practice. In the midst of this work the Chief Justice encourages us to stretch beyond conventional paradigms. In addition to standing committees, the Chief Justice has sought our input on every innovation and proposed reform. Through his leadership and this collaborative process we can employ Alternative Dispute Resolution, Family Courts, Drug Courts, Truancy Courts, Mental Health Courts, Child Support Guidelines, Protective Orders, pro se services, jury reform, family group decision making practices, dependency facilitation, and technological improvements that include collaboration with other agencies including the state police and the BMV. Just to name a few.

He is indeed a visionary leader who has chosen to walk with us as he leads.

By his collaboration with the other branches of government he has paved the way for us to secure much needed raises and improvements in pension plans. He has ensured that we, the local trial judges, are granted a direct voice with the legislature in matters important to the judiciary. He has never failed to provide Indiana Trial Judges with the needed support when we find ourselves at the precipice of controversial issues.

Possibly the greatest attribute that the Chief Justice brings to his Collegial Leadership is his humility. Today is one such example. In consideration of today’s recognition he e-mailed me:

“…so many of the things for which I was nominated are in fact accomplishments in which trial judges and court staff have played such important roles. I see this award as commending all of us in the Indiana judiciary for the many positive things that have been happening here…”

What he failed to say, however, was that we are only able to embrace reforms because he has empowered us to be so engaged. In addition, as new reforms prosper he is content to allow the local judge to receive the accolades.

Members of the Supreme Court following Shepard's selection as Chief; left to right: Hon. Roger O. DeBruler, Hon. Richard M. Givan, Hon. Randall T. Shepard, Hon. Brent E. Dickson, and Hon. Alfred J. Pivarnik. (Photo by University of Notre Dame)

Lest one may sense that my comments are simply my own, allow me to “walk” across Indiana through the comments I received from Indiana’s trial judges:

We begin our journey around Indiana at the northwest corner of our state:

Judge Mary Harper, Porter Circuit Court:

“Under his guidance, we now are able to assist individuals in our day-in and day-out case work. We are no longer seeing just defeat—that is those who re-offend or violate probation. Rather we are now able to congratulate drug-free clients and we are able to watch the rebuilding of families. From the development of Mental Health Courts to Family Courts he has led us from a system of granting and denying to one of developing and helping.”

In nearby Lake County:

Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura, Lake Superior Court—Juvenile Division:

“Chief Justice Shepard is not just reactive to national trends but proactive in exploring and adopting trend setting procedures such as allowing cameras in the court rooms of juvenile courts for ground breaking projects: allowing young people and parents to witness the results of poor choices and behaviors as it relates to juvenile delinquency and child abuse and neglect.”

Moving east across the state to Northeast Indiana:

Judge Fran Gull, Allen Superior Court:

“Indiana is leading the country in jury reform as a direct result of the Chief Justice’s leadership in examining jury trials across the state and the adoption of new jury rules.”

A few miles south of Allen County we enter Adams County:

Judge Fred Schurger, Adams Circuit Court:

“The Chief Justice has demonstrated himself to be pro-judge. I am amazed by his ability to discern trends that are coming and to correctly determine where Indiana should be within those trends.”

Hon. Randall T. Shepard is sworn for his fourth term as Chief Justice in 2002 by late Gov. Frank O'Bannon.

Travelling to Central Indiana:

Judge Steven David, Boone Circuit Court (now Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David):

One of the Chief Justice’s early State of the Judiciary addresses profoundly influenced Judge Steve David:

“The Chief Justice encouraged us to step out from behind the bench, to have an impact as a community player and to take leadership risks for the benefit of the people we are elected to serve. His call to duty was not empty as he provided us with continued support in our steps to shift the paradigm of our office.”

And then to neighboring Indianapolis:

Judge Tanya Pratt, Marion Superior Court (now Federal Court Judge Tanya Pratt, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana):

“At the urging of Chief Justice Shepard, the State of Indiana launched an ambitious effort to increase the number of minority, low-income and non-traditional students in Indiana’s law schools. The Indiana Conference for Legal Education for Opportunity (ICLEO) has changed the face of the Indiana legal community for over 11 years. Our Chief Justice has always encouraged and promoted diversity within the Indiana Judiciary. He has been extremely supportive of my career and offers wisdom, guidance and professional support to the judges who serve in the Indiana State judiciary.”

Chief Justice Shepard with seven of the eleven Justices with whom he served during his 27 years on the bench; left to right: Hon. Robert D. Rucker, Hon. Randall T. Shepard, Hon. Theodore R. Boehm, Hon. Myra C. Selby, Hon. Roger O. DeBruler, Hon. Steven H. David, Hon. Brent E. Dickson, and Hon. Frank Sullivan, Jr. (Photo by John Gentry)

Moving to the Southeast:

Judge James Humphrey, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Dearborn and Ohio Counties:

“Justice Shepard understands what it means to be a trial judge. He has given us the tools to make the process work and the discretion to get the cases tried.”

Judge Roger Duvall, Scott Circuit Court:

“The Chief Justice has made tremendous efforts to make new judges feel welcome and comfortable within the Judges Association. The services he has made available to new judges are extraordinary. As a personal example of that support I am grateful to recall a New Years Eve several years ago. The Chief Justice considered it a priority to brave a winter snow storm as he travelled to Scott County to swear in myself, another judge, and the prosecutor.”

We continue our travel to Southern Indiana:

Judge Vicki Carmichael, Clark Superior Court No. 1:

“The Chief Justice is one of those rare individuals who remembers a person’s name and knows something about them. He always has a comment for new judges and young judges. Regardless of our status within the judiciary, he has always made a point to treat everyone with respect and fairness. As a result, our profession has been enhanced.”

We travel westward across to the central area:

Judge Frances Hill, Monroe Circuit Court, Division 6:

“In 1997, Chief Justice Randall Shepard said in his State of the Judiciary that ‘a family court is a place where you deal with the whole family in a single courtroom regardless of the label.’ From that day forth, the Chief Justice has gently, but with dogged determination, advocated for innovative ways to serve our families and children in the court system. His imperative that we should always strive to better meet the needs of the people we serve, is the mark of excellence that he has stamped on the Indiana judiciary, and the yard stick I use to measure my own efforts as a Judge. I am proud and grateful that he has set the bar so high for each one of us.”

Then we go to Indiana’s southern tip—a place known well to Justice Shepard:

Judge Brett Niemeyer, Vanderburgh Superior Court:

“We’re proud he’s from Evansville. He’s made the state and his home town proud.”

Back up along the western border to the central western area:

Judge Susan Henderson, Fountain County Circuit Court:

“Over the years Chief Justice Randall Shepard has lead by example. He sets expectations for us and encourages creative thinking to prepare for problems that are yet only on the horizon. He recognizes there is no one-size-fits-all and supports innovative programs that may become models for courts across the State.”

Judge John Rader, Warren Circuit Court:

“When I meet with judges from other states and discuss the resources we have available, they are amazed. The breadth of support that we have, thanks to the Chief Justice’s leadership, range from extraordinary judicial education to services that include judicial balance and the judicial assistance program—all of which work to help us do our jobs better. We are the envy of other state judiciaries.”

We end our tour in Indianapolis:

In acknowledging that the employees of the “Supreme Court Enterprises” are proud to be on his team, Executive Director Lilia Judson wrote:

“When Chief Justice Shepard took the helm, his goal was to bring the Indiana judiciary to a place where other states would ask: “what does Indiana say and what has Indiana done?” Under his leadership, Indiana courts have reached and surpassed this goal. From an administrative perspective, Chief Justice Shepard’s visionary leadership has empowered our staff and the trial courts to implement innovative ways to deal with the ever more challenging problems facing our courts. We are constantly improving the delivery of justice in Indiana because he never stops thinking about how we can do better. At the same time, his legal acumen and scholarship have brought a new level of respect and recognition for Indiana jurisprudence.”

Jane Siegel, Executive Director of the Judicial Center adds:

“In addition to delivering his vision, the Chief Justice ensures that we in the Supreme Court family are given the support we need to achieve these goals.”

This award recognizes, and these testimonials clearly demonstrate, that we are uniquely blessed as a judiciary to have a visionary leader at the helm. As a result, we are better judges and the people we are called to serve are the beneficiaries.

As we encounter the future, and the challenges it brings to our profession, we can be assured that we will have a voice in the required resolutions and we can be further assured that in our Chief Justice, we will have a leader who listens as a colleague.

Chief Justice Shepard, on behalf of the Indiana Trial Judges, we thank you and extend our heartfelt congratulations.

The reflections from Judge Pratt and the other trial judges represent just a small sampling of the deep regard in which the Chief Justice is held throughout Indiana.

In all other Indiana counties, the circuit or superior courts hear and resolve small claims cases. In Marion County, nine divisions of the Marion County Small Claims Court system handle collection disputes and landlord-tenant matters with a $6,000 limit.

Chief Justice Shepard in January 2012 appointed a two-person Small Claims Task Force—Court of Appeals Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty Barteau, a former Court of Appeals Judge—to investigate allegations that the Marion County Small Claims Courts do not meet fairness and impartiality standards.

Both Judge Baker and Judge Barteau spent several years presiding over small claims cases. Judge Baker served as a Superior Court judge in Monroe County and Judge Barteau was Boonville City Judge in Warrick County. They each have extensive experience at every level of the judicial system. Chief Justice Shepard describes both as possessing “deep knowledge and understanding of the Indiana justice system and the crucial role of impartial courts.”

The Small Claims Task Force conducted three public hearings during which it sought comments from the public about the practices and procedures of the Marion County Small Claims Courts. More than 200 local residents attended these hearings, held on February 22 in Perry Township, February 29 in Pike Township, and March 7 in Marion Circuit Court. About 50 individuals—including collection attorneys, landlords, tenants, small claims defendants, law students, pro bono attorneys, and a state senator—testified before the Task Force. A certified court reporter attended each hearing to ensure a written, accurate transcript of the statements. The Task Force accepted additional written comments on the small claims courts until March 15 and is conducting a thorough research of the statues, rules, case law and other authorities relating to these courts.

The nine Marion County Small Claims Judges, under the leadership of Marion Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg who has certain statutory responsibilities in regards to those courts, have also met and formed a plan of action in response to these allegations, including a plan to post brochures in all courtrooms detailing litigants’ rights and responsibilities. The Task Force hopes to complete the fact-finding process and submit any recommendations for rule changes to the Supreme Court’s Rules Committee by May 2012. Legislative recommendations will be forwarded to the Commission on Courts.

View the Task Force Report released on May 1, 2012

See photos from the Task Force public hearings on Flickr

Click to enlarge (Photo by Dave Remondini)

See more photos from the CASA Rally on Flickr

Volunteers from Indiana’s Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs came from across the state and took part in a rally in Indianapolis on March 5th. Approximately 350 people clothed in blue T-shirts filled the north atrium of the State House. The goal of the rally was to draw attention to the need for more CASA volunteers and the importance of their role as a voice for vulnerable children.

There are 3,200 CASA volunteers working in 72 Indiana counties advocating on behalf of 18,613 abused and neglected children. CASA volunteers advocate on behalf of abused and neglected children whose families are involved with the child welfare system.

Supreme Court Justice Steven David addressed those in attendance. Leslie Dunn, director of the State Office of GAL/CASA, was also one of the featured speakers. And, Danielle Pierson, a former foster youth and now on the staff at Child Advocates in Indianapolis, also spoke at the rally about her experiences in foster care and the benefits of having a child advocate.

Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard was honored for his long-time commitment to CASA and presented with a small statue of children with a plaque thanking him for his many years of commitment to CASA programs and to Indiana’s children. The Rally was sponsored by the Indiana Child Advocates Network and the State Office of GAL/CASA, of the Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration.

Under certain conditions, Trial Rule 81.1 allows a judge to use “Family Procedures” and exercise jurisdiction over all cases involving the same family or household (as defined). Family Procedures are defined in the rule as the coordination of proceedings and processes, and information sharing among cases in a court or courts involving family or household members. The goal of the new rule is to avoid uninformed or inconsistent rulings in multiple cases involving one family or household and therefore better serve children and families in our courts.

Using the new rule:

• When a court intends to use Family Procedures for a case, it must enter an order notifying all parties to this case of the court’s intentions.
• A party has 15 days after notice of this order is sent to object to his or her case being selected to be heard using Family Procedures.
• This court order also affects a party’s ability to request change of venue from the judge. Only those motions for change of venue permitted by Indiana Trial Rule 76 may be granted for cause once this notice is sent.
• Within 30 days after a case is selected, the court must provide a list of all cases the court will hear using Family Procedures to each party to all these cases.
• The court can set concurrent hearings on some issues and rule on the admissibility of evidence for each separate case.
• When using Family Procedures, a judge must choose whether to maintain the separate integrity and docket numbers for each case but hear the cases together or consolidate a family’s cases into one common case number if multiple cases are being heard before one judge.

The new rule provides that cases to which Family Procedures are being applied can retain their separate case numbers OR be combined under one case number if multiple cases are being heard before one judge.

The recommended best practice is for courts to maintain the separate case numbers for the cases pulled into Family Proceedings.

The use of common case numbers could pose challenges to court case management systems, has the potential to skew a court’s statistics, could cause confusion as to the burden and proof, and also could confuse parties on deadlines for when to file appeals and other pleadings. The confidentiality of the records in cases joined under one case number can also become very problematic. Under Administrative Rule 9, the parties to a case have access to all the records in the case (except in certain situations such as protective orders). The new rule provides records excluded from public access remain confidential to the added parties, even if all cases are consolidated into a single case. This means that the record keeper will need to remember somehow which parties in a case can have access to which records.

For all of the above reasons, the Division of State Court Administration recommends that cases not be joined into one case number. This will mean that the court will have to enter similar orders and make entries in each “bundled” case file and CCS.

If a court decides to consolidate multiple cases into one, the court should pick one case that will remain as the primary case. The court must enter an order of consolidation and cause the order to be filed in the case filed for each consolidated case and noted on the CCS of each case. At the time of consolidation, the court must enter a statistical disposition for each of the case numbers except the one remaining. Only one case will remain as pending. The others must be counted as being disposed by “transferred out.”

Further questions about this issue may be directed to Jeff Wiese at (317) 232-2542 or jeffrey.wiese@courts.in.gov.

In the September/October 2010 issue of the Indiana Court Times, we discussed the differences between a Petition for a Restricted Driver’s License under Indiana Code 9-24-15 and a Petition for Judicial Review of a Habitual Violator Suspension under Indiana Code 9-30-10. One of those differences is the type of court costs that are assessed. Regular civil costs are assessed for the former and infraction costs for the latter. However, both of these proceedings are assigned a civil miscellaneous (MI) case type. Hmmm, this could be trouble. How does the clerk know which costs to assess?

We have a prepared the following easy-to-read chart to help clerks quickly distinguish which type of proceeding is being filed so that they can identify and charge the appropriate court costs. We encourage clerks working at the front counter where these matters are filed to keep this reference chart handy and refer to it when these sort of petitions are tendered for filing.

Click to enlarge

The Division encourages judges to apply for a grant. The money awarded can help improve your local court system. Up to $30,000 per grant request is available for initial study grants, while up to $40,000 per request is available for implementation grants. Last year, the Court awarded $280,510 to a total of 10 counties.

Requests for the following projects will be given priority consideration:

1. Unified court administration
2. Multi-county and/or multi-district problem-solving courts
3. Measuring court performance through use of CourTools
4. Studies and/or implementation of ways courts could consolidate judicial responsibility for court records
5. Modern court technology

For more information on these categories and the types of grants awarded please refer to the Court Reform Grant Application. Grant applications are due by June 1, 2012.

For questions or more information about the Court Reform Grants, please contact Elizabeth Daulton, Staff Attorney, at elizabeth.daulton@courts.in.gov or (317) 234-7155.

Sergeant First Class Paulette Riehl blows bubbles with the kids at Jaji Maidan.

Taking a year off from the bench of the Marion County Superior Court Juvenile Division to do a year of active duty military service in Khost, Afghanistan was one of the most exciting experiences of my life. As a JAG (Judge Advocate General, the army’s lawyers), I had spent my entire 25-year career in the Indiana National Guard mobilizing citizen soldiers—preparing their wills, powers of attorney and attending to their families’ legal issues during their soldier’s absence. Now I was going to be one of those soldiers.

My unit, the 3-19th Agribusiness Development Team (ADT), was formed a year before we left for Afghanistan in September, 2010 and trained together as a unit for that year not only in warrior tasks (marksmanship, land navigation, grenade throwing, mine deployment, etc.) but also in primitive farming skills like plowing with oxen and draft horses, blacksmithing, and wool spinning. I was the large animal husbandry specialist because my husband and I have a small horse farm. Six of the 62-person unit were women and we formed a female engagement team to interact with Afghan women.

Lieutenant Colonel Pam Moody and Colonel Marilyn Moores at Forward Operating Base Chapman preparing to go on an all-women's mission to Jaji Maidan to conduct with local Afghan women's officials a shura (which is essentially like a town hall meeting) where the local women can tell their women officials of their concerns and needs.

Khost is one of Afghanistan’s easternmost provinces, right next to the Pakistan border and south of Kabul. There we lived on FOB (Forward Operating Base) Salerno, home to 3,000 Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and civilian contractors. Salerno is nicknamed “Rocket City” for the weekly shellings we received from Taliban troops in Pakistan.

Not long after we arrived in country, I went to work at the Brigade headquarters’ Rule of Law section where we worked with Khost provincial and district government to mentor local judges and prosecutors and further the development and implementation of local government. Khost had a working court system—something not true of all other provinces. We helped establish a system whereby Khost court decisions were published on the web, not only in Pashtu but also in English. We helped conduct training for the judicial officers in a newly issued judicial code of conduct. We helped bring vocational training to the local prison to better reintegrate offenders after their release. We helped strengthen security at the provincial court house which also contains judicial housing for security reasons.

But perhaps most rewarding were the women’s missions we conducted with the PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team). Afghan women officials were in as much danger as, if not more than, the male officials. So when the Director of Women’s Affairs wanted to visit a remote district capital, Jaji Maidan, to conduct a shura we escorted her and her staff and attended the meeting with Jaji Maidan’s women to find out what they wanted from their government and what issues and concerns they had. The shura was addressed by the young male district governor, after he received permission from the village elders, an event that made headlines all over Afghanistan for its innovation.

Afghan women and children at Gorbuz leave a humanitarian assistance site operated by members of the Indiana Army National Guard 3-19th Agribusiness Development Team where they were given children’s coats, school supplies—all donated by Indiana residents, note the baby’s bare feet—it was February, 2011 and approximately 40 degrees. Baby shoes are for some reason very hard to get in Afghanistan and seeing barefoot babies is very common.

The women expressed the need for more women’s healthcare—not surprising given that one in nine Afghan women die in childbirth and the average life expectancy for a woman is only 42 years. They were concerned that many of the villagers had diarrhea, later determined to be caused by the lack of sanitary sewers and shallow wells for drinking water. They wanted more education about their legal rights. Their lack of knowledge was not surprising considering that only 23% of Afghans are literate and of that 23%, only 7% are women. All of the women were very concerned about the Americans leaving their country fearing a return to the dreaded days of the Taliban when they were not allowed to be educated or even leave their homes without appropriate male escorts.

As I left Afghanistan we were planning to engage Afghan women attorneys from Kabul to visit small, remote villages like Jaji Maidan to educate Afghan women about their legal rights guaranteed by the Afghan constitution—that they cannot be forced to marry someone, that their dowries are their property and not their families, and that females under the age of 16 cannot marry. I am hopeful this project was approved and is being undertaken.

LEFT. Afghan kids at Gorbuz enjoying their new goodies. RIGHT. SFC Paulette Riehl of the 3-19th ADT holding an Afghan baby at the Jaji Maidan shura.

We found the Pashtun people most warm and friendly, and the ultimate hosts/hostesses. Tea and biscuits (cookies to us) were served at every meeting. They are also exceedingly generous and kind. We formed lifelong friendships with our interpreters and other Afghans with whom we worked. And after spending an entire year there, it was heart-wrenching to have to leave, knowing the communication gulf that would ensue. Afghanistan has no postal system. There are no hard-wired electrical or telephonic grids outside of Kabul. The most common method of distance communication is by cellular phone, and even this is haphazard at best because of all the interference caused by the mountains.

And it was hard to leave with so much still to be done. I wanted to see it through to completion. There is much reason to be hopeful—75% of the population is under the age of 21—and we have been there for 10 years, so we have had a huge influence on a large portion of the young population. Children—both boys and girls—are attending school in droves, because their parents see the advantages of an education. Cottage industries are flourishing, even among women. But the Taliban remains a force to be reckoned with, always lurking in the lawless tribal areas of northern Pakistan, just waiting for an opportunity. It would break my heart to see all the progress gone overnight because we did not stay the course.

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.