Thanks to sources within the court system Indiana Barrister was alerted to Senate bill 1768, authored by Sen. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would allow televising United States Supreme Court proceedings. The full text of the bill has not yet been posted online but Sen. Specter’s office has sent a copy to Indiana Barrister. It reads:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

(a) In General. — Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following: “§678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings

“The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before the Court.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment. — The chapter analysis for chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

“678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.”.

The Library of Congress’ Bill Summary & Status lists six co-sponsors in addition to Sen. Specter: Sen Allen (R-VA), Sen Cornyn (R-TX), Sen Feingold (D-WI), Sen Grassley (R-IA), Sen Leahy (D-VT), and Sen Schumer (D-NY). All sponsors are members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee. You can read Sen. Specter’s statement in support of the bill here (pdf), where he speaks for himself and the co-sponsors.

In Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981), the Supreme Court unanimously called for experimentation with TV in the courtroom. The Court held for the first time that television in the courtroom was not per se unconstitutional. Under Chandler a defendant would only be entitled to show why, in his particular case, television coverage was prejudicial. In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohen, 420 U.S. 469, 491-92 (1975), the Supreme Court observed that in our modern society, few can take the time to see trials first-hand. Accordingly, the Court noted that the media must serve as the public’s surrogate in effectuating the public’s right to know.

Nevertheless, the experimentation called for in Chandler has typically only applied to state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has been adamant in refusing to allow the televising of trials or appeals. Until recently, the Justices did not even allow the live audio broadcasting of arguments, though they did permit archival audiotaping. In the landmark case of Bush v. Gore — the case that effectively ended the Presidential election of 2000 — the Justices finally relented and permitted the real time audio transmission of the final arguments. Still, television has not been permitted in the high court. For more background on the issue Elizabeth McKee has penned an instructive article titled, “Banning Television Cameras From the American Courtroom” (pdf).

The Indiana Supreme Court published its opinion in PSI Energy, Inc. v. William Lee Roberts, Jr. & Beverly Roberts (pdf). It concludes:

The wisdom of permitting a motion based on sufficiency of the evidence for the first time after trial was addressed in the course of the 1970 overhaul of Indiana trial procedure that brought it generally, but not entirely, in conformity with federal practice. As long as that remains permissible, we think the interest of getting the trial right the first time outweighs any injustice in a given case caused by affirming a result that is justified under the unobjected instructions, but not supported under the law as found by the appellate court.

On Monday, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management began posting records of sanitary overflows on its “Compliance Evaluation Section” of its Web site and will update them every Friday. Today the Indianapolis Star reports:

Every year, at least 1 billion gallons of untreated sewage flows into waterways and ditches and onto the ground in neighborhoods all over Indiana.

State law requires cities and towns to notify residents of overflows from combined sewers — when pipes that transport both raw sewage and storm water spill into waterways — but there is no such requirement for overflows from sewers designed to carry only sanitary waste.

The Indianapolis Star reports, “Police: Judge’s daughter faced peer’s knife attack.”

A male student attacked the daughter of a Delaware County judge at Muncie Central High School with a knife Monday, leaving her with cuts to her throat and hands, officials said.

Police said they do not believe the attack on 16-year-old Leigh Ann Vorhees was linked to her mother, Marianne Vorhees, or her position as a Delaware Circuit Court judge.

A 17-year-old, whose name was not released because he is a juvenile, faces a preliminary charge of attempted murder in the attack, officials said.

NewsLink Indiana has more on details of how the attack transpired. The Gary Post Tribune has an article titled, “Muncie stabbing feels eerily familiar.” The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette headlines its story with, “Judge’s child cut in knife fight at Muncie school.”

Today the Indianapolis Star reports, “Showdown on abortion is brewing.” The Bush administration has asked the US Supreme Court to reinstate a legislative ban on late-term “partial birth” abortions, appealing a July ruling by the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis that upheld a Nebraska federal district court ruling finding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (pdf) unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for the health of the mother. The appeal in Carhart v. Gonzalez (pdf) was filed Friday and released Monday. The “partial birth” abortion case has been a contentious two-year legal battle, but it is as yet unclear if the Supreme Court will take the latest appeal. It has already scheduled arguments in November in another abortion case involving New Hampshire’s parental notification statute. AP has more.

In his comment, Chad Michael Ross, a senior staff member of the University of Memphis Law Review, discusses the case of Taylor v. Holt, 134 S.W.3d 830 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) in which The Tennessee Court of Appeals Allows a Computer Generated Signature to Validate a Testamentary Will, 35 U. Mem. L. Rev. 603-618 (2005). Here is an excerpt from the comment:

With the continuing changes in technology, the typical way of signing a legal document using an ink pen is no longer the only feasible option. Regardless, signing by pen may be one of the safest ways to avoid fraud. The use of a pen to make one’s signature can easily be compared and analyzed to determine its authenticity; admittedly, however, it is impossible to analyze an “X” mark for its genuineness–and that type of a signature dates back hundreds of years.

With its holding in Taylor, the Tennessee Court of Appeals becomes the first in the nation to rule on the validity of a testator’s computer-generated signature. Courts have often been reluctant to acknowledge technological advances and to develop novel interpretations of traditional probate laws. The Taylor opinion, however, artfully combines precedent concerning testamentary signatures with the reality of modern technology. In so doing, the court has issued a well-founded opinion that proves that the statute of wills can accommodate the advances of technology without sacrificing the goals that underlie the statute. At least in this area of probate law, Tennessee now leads the way, and other states are likely to follow.

“Petty criminals can walk, for a price” reads the headline in an article in today’s Indianapolis Star.

If you commit a minor crime like shoplifting in Marion County, you can essentially buy your way out of trouble and have the charges dismissed.

A pretrial diversion program — similar to ones in at least 76 other Indiana counties — permits people to pay a $150 administrative fee to erase the charges.

But for those who cannot afford the cost, a guilty plea or trial are the only choices.

In on a post on Looting in Houston, Prof. Eugene Volokh writes, “whatever the practical or moral merits of shooting looters, I think it’s surely morally laudable to warn looters that Texas law generally authorizes people to kill thieves to protect or recover their own property (setting aside the situation where the target took the property in order to survive).” The law also permits people to use deadly force to protect others’ property under similar circumstances.

It’s worth noting that Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 has somewhat similar provisions.

(a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling or curtilage.

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person’s trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).

Therefore even the threat of injury or felony can justify deadly force. Force is not defined by the result but by the foreseeability determined by reasonable belief.

The Evansville Courier & Press has an article with the headline, “It is her job to speak in many voices.” Here are some quotes:

Meanwhile, the number of Spanish-speaking defendants in area courts has escalated. Vanderburgh County officials said 9 percent of more than 12,500 criminal court hearings last year required the use of an interpreter. It’s a dramatic increase over the handful of cases of five years ago.

The standards for court interpreting are rigorous. Not only does Nelson have to simultaneously interpret up to 100 words or more a minute, she has to be ready to transform American legal concepts into a language for which there is often no exact translation. By law, she’s forbidden from interjecting any of her own thoughts or words while acting as a court interpreter. “It’s a stressful job, but I love it,” said Nelson. “It’s a hard job and it should be. You have someone else’s life and liberty in your hands.”

The gravity of that responsibility has prompted both state and federal court officials to raise the bar for what’s required to become a certified court interpreter. A commission appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2001 found evidence of fraudulent conduct by some interpreters and discovered judges, especially those in rural areas, had been relying on police officers or defendants’ relatives to interpret proceedings. It was a recipe for judicial disaster.

You can read more about the Court Interpreter Certification Program online. The Indiana Judiciary also offers resources for potential and current interpreters.

The Indianapolis Star has an article titled, “Bankruptcy’s next chapter: Run-up to law change fuels jump in state filings; new rules make it tougher to wipe away debts.” A quote:

The crush likely will end Oct. 17 when new bankruptcy rules kick in. The law will make it costlier and more time-consuming to file bankruptcy, and will make it harder for above-average earners to simply wipe their slates clean.

The law has been sharply criticized by bankruptcy attorneys and consumer advocates but praised by banks, credit-card companies and other lenders for bringing balance to a system that has favored debtors since 1978.
Personal bankruptcy filings in Indiana and nationwide spiked 11 percent from April through June, according to U.S. Bankruptcy Courts figures. In Indianapolis, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana has received more than 100 personal filings a day during those months.

And the pace is quickening. Since July 1, the court has received an average of 125 filings a day, and more than 250 each day last week. Daily filings a year ago numbered about 30.

In July the Better Business Bureau published an article of mine on the subject titled, “Changes in Bankruptcy Law.” You can read the Bankrupcty Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act online (pdf).