A large classroom at Chesterton High School for an hour Wednesday was transformed into a solemn, formal courtroom for the Indiana Court of Appeals.
It is part of a program known as “Appeals on Wheels,” where the appeals court annually ventures outside of Indianapolis, making about 40 stops around the state to hear cases. The program plans a stop at Valparaiso High School Thursday, and will be at the Notre Dame Law School in South Bend Monday.
About 60 Chesterton High School students watched the proceedings and got to ask questions afterward.
It was a homecoming of sorts for the three judges on the panel hearing the case, as all of them have ties in Northwest Indiana.
Judges Elizabeth F. Tavitas and Stephen E. Scheele both served on the bench in Lake County before they were elevated to the appeals court, while Judge Mary A. DeBoer served as a Porter Superior Court judge.
Before the proceedings started, Anne Fuchs, director of communications, advised the students to be respectful.
“It’s not a mock trial, it’s a real case. These are real attorneys talking about a real case that affects real people’s lives,” Fuchs said.
Students were compliant, as it was like there were no others in the room other than the two attorneys and the judges during the court hearing.
More Top Picks Baratza Virtuoso
Dexter Kehle, 17, a senior, was chosen as the student bailiff for the proceedings. He got to strike the gavel and announce “hear ye, hear ye, hear ye” to start the hearing.
“I’ve learned that if you get an opportunity, you take it,” Kehle said about why he accepted the honor.
The case before the three-judge panel was the State of Indiana vs. Mitchell Jay Bozarth.
Bozarth was originally arrested on a suspected operating while intoxicated charge. He was placed, handcuffed, in the front seat of a patrol vehicle.
The Wayne County police officer had to attend to a family medical emergency. As a result, he failed to take a step to retain a dashboard camera video recording inside the cruiser.
Later, the police officer found heroin underneath the front seat of the cruiser. Bozarth was charged with a Level 2 felony of dealing in a narcotic drug.
However, the trial court judge sided with the defense attorney and dismissed the felony drug and operating while intoxicated charges, finding that the state violated Bozarth’s due process rights by failing to preserve the video.
The trial court judge found no foul play by the officer, but the video could have been materially exculpatory.
Jesse Drum, a deputy with the Indian Attorney General’s Office, argued on behalf of the state that the trial court judge went too far and that the case could have gone to trial, where the issues could have been addressed.
Peter Capofari, the attorney representing Bozarth, said that the judge made the right decision because there were chain of evidence issues regarding the heroin discovered by the officer, and the video was important evidence for his client. Capofari did concede that the judge might have overreached in also dismissing the operating while intoxicated charge.
After hearing the case, the judges stepped from behind their desks and stood for questions.
They gave practical advice to students about how they should approach their futures.
“My advice to you is that you don’t know what you want to do early, but follow your dreams and work hard. If you work hard, people tend to notice you,” Tavitas said.
DeBoer encouraged the students to take chances in trying to learn their vocation.
“Take some chances, but don’t get in trouble. Don’t take stupid chances,” DeBoer said.
A teacher who advises the speech and debate team asked whether that was a good avenue for those interested in being an attorney.
The three judges said they didn’t participate in the speech and debate team in high school, but saw where it could be useful.
DeBoer said she found her participation in theater to be helpful. Scheele said he is naturally introverted and, at one time, found public speaking to be “terrifying,” but he learned to overcome that barrier.
Julian Blevins, a sophomore, got to ask the last question: “How do you distinguish your personal beliefs from the law?”
Tavitas complimented Blevins for his “very good question.”
“We have taken an oath from the Constitution and are taught not to have biases for or against. There are two sides to every story. As a trial court judge, I would not make up my mind before I had heard all the evidence,” Tavitas said.
When asked afterward, Blevins said he raised the question because in criminal justice class, when they review cases, he finds his personal viewpoint inevitably arises.
After the students cleared the room, Tavitas said that the question raised by Blevins regularly comes up.
“And I am always glad that a student asks that question,” Tavitas said, noting that it shows they are seriously thinking about issues.
More Top Picks Best Drinking Glasses
Jim Woods is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.