Will The Indiana Court Of Appeals Hear Oral Argument In Charlie White's Appeal?

Former Secretary of State Charlie White's highly unusual and unprecedented prosecution on multiple felonies by a Hamilton Co. special prosecutor for registering to vote and casting a single ballot in one election at the home of his ex-wife while he was in between homes has been pending on appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals for quite some time. Although it has been nearly two months since the case was fully briefed and his attorney filed a motion for oral argument, the Court of Appeals has yet to action on his motion. A question posed by me recently to the Court's spokesperson, Martin DeAgostino, yielded this response: "There are no deadlines for the court's response to motions, so all we can say in this instance is that the motion is pending. Thank you."

White was forced from office when a Hamilton Co. jury found him guilty of six of seven felony counts in February, 2012 after a special prosecutor brought charges against him arising from his supposed illegal registered voting address. White's criminal trial came after the Indiana Recount Commission unanimously ruled in 2011 that White satisfied residency requirements and had not committed vote fraud by using his ex-wife's home as his voting address, a decision that was later upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court.

It would seem rather odd if the Court of Appeals would deny oral argument for White's case, particularly in light of the public importance of the case. The Court recently granted a motion to hear oral argument in the Good Earth Natural Foods case against the Department of Metropolitan Development over the Whole Foods redevelopment project in Broad Ripple within three weeks of that case being fully briefed, which arguably was far less important than White's case. The Court heard oral argument in that case on October 1 and issued its final opinion on October 28, an opinion not for publication. By comparison, White's case was fully briefed on September 8, just 30 days after Good Earth's case was fully briefed. Court rules do not require that a party be afforded oral argument during an appeal.