Judge Complains About Lawyer's 'Repugnant Stench'

In the annals of benchslaps, this one is pretty bad.

This is a new one. Judge Patricia A. Riley of the Indiana Court of Appeals delivered an embarrassing benchslap: she objects to the lawyer’s “repugnant stench.”

Or more accurately, the repugnant stench that the lawyer left on the appellate record. In the opening footnote of Elvers v. Indiana, Riley writes:

In two prior memorandum decisions, our court noted that the record emitted a foul odor consistent with cigarette or pipe smoke, and we asked that those who handle the appellate record refrain from such contamination in the future. See Rice v. State, No. 49A02-1401-CR-12 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2014); Wampler v. State, No. 09A02-1201-CR-61 (Ind. Ct. App. July 3, 2012). It appears that our requests were disregarded because the record in the instant case is permeated with the same repugnant stench. The fact that all three of these malodorous records were handled by the same Deputy Attorney General prompts us to direct this third entreaty to the Office of the Attorney General with the demand that our request for clean, unscented records be heeded.

First of all, cigarette or pipe smoke? Come on. Are those really too difficult to tell apart? One smells like nicotine-fueled nightmares and the other smells like cherry lollipops.

The poor AAG called out in this footnote is Ian McLean. The judges just aren’t taking your invitation to flavor country anymore, buddy. McLean is a 7-year veteran of the criminal appeals division (assuming no stints elsewhere from his initial appointment) of the AG’s office in Indiana. In all that time, he’s handled a boatload of appeals, but the complaints over smoke-contaminated files began only recently.

First, in Wampler, Judge Edward W. Najam Jr. sniped that he’d appreciate documents that weren’t compiled by the Marlboro Man. Then a couple of months later, when ruling on a second appeal handled by McLean, Judge Najam reiterated his issue:

We note, as we have in a prior memorandum decision, that the transcript in this case emits an unpleasant odor consistent with that of cigarette or pipe smoke that is apparent, offensive, and consistent.

Sponsored

But, when Judge Riley decided a McLean appeal just this week, she set aside Judge Najam’s polite prodding and went full-on benchslap.

In McLean’s defense, Bryan Corbin, a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, noted that the record in Judge Riley’s case was already submitted before Judge Najam lodged his objections — in July. That’s some foul, long-lasting stench! Additionally, we don’t really know that McLean is the Cigarette Smoking Man in these cases — it could just be someone who works for him. Not that this excuses him of ultimate responsibility, but it’s worth noting.

In any event, the IndyStar reports that the AG has heard the judges loud and clear and imposed a firm new policy to solve the problem. Banning AAGs from smoking while handling the record? Nah. Once again we look to technology to accomplish what basic human willpower cannot:

“The Attorney General’s Office has shifted this category of criminal cases into a new paperless workflow using electronic scans of court records, not original paper copies,” Corbin said in an email to the Indianapolis Star. “As we now scan such records, the condition of paper in the paper file should not be an issue, at least not for the Attorney General’s Office.”

So smoke ’em if you got ’em, Indiana AAGs! The people are buying you a scanner.

Sponsored

You know the drill. Full opinions are on the following pages….

Another judge smokin’ mad over smelly documents [IndyStar]