B.A., 1992, Ohio Wesleyan University
M.A., 1994, University of Cincinnati
J.D. (magna cum laude), 1998, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Legal analysis, research and communication; appellate clinic; appellate practice; judicial selection seminar; juvenile justice; state constitutional law
A magna cum laude graduate of IU McKinney School of Law, where he served as an articles editor for the Indiana Law Review , Joel Schumm joined the faculty in the fall of 2001. A member of Phi Beta Kappa, Professor Schumm spent the three years after graduation in judicial clerkships, first with the Honorable Theodore R. Boehm of the Indiana Supreme Court and then the Honorable Paul D. Mathias of the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Professor Schumm is actively involved with the bench, the bar, and the legal writing academic community. He directs the law school’s Judicial Externship Program, which places approximately eighty students each year with state and federal judges in trial and appellate courts in central Indiana and beyond. He is frequently quoted as an expert by newspaper, television, and radio media as well as offering commentary on the widely read Indiana Law Blog on topics related to criminal law, juvenile justice, and the Indiana judiciary. He serves as co-chair of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Written Publications Committee and writes a bi-monthly column for the state bar journal, Res Gestae . Professor Schumm has served on the faculty of more than fifty continuing legal education seminars sponsored by bar associations, the Indiana Public Defender Council, and other organizations. He is also a frequent presenter at regional and national legal writing conferences throughout the United States. In 2012 Professor Schumm was selected by the Judicial Nominating Commission as one of five semi-finalists described by Chief Justice Dickson as “outstanding and extremely well-qualified” for a vacancy on the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Professor Schumm’s research and writing areas include criminal law and procedure, and he has authored the annual survey article on that topic in the Indiana Law Review since 1997. From 2005 to 2007 he served as the Indiana team leader for the American Bar Association’s assessment of the death penalty, which issued a 400-page report. He authored a criminal appellate practice manual for Indiana lawyers published by the Indiana Public Defender Council in 2008. He has also served as the reporter for national projects including the Problem-Solving Courts Task Force of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) in 2009 and “Padilla and Future of the Defense Function” in 2011.
Professor Schumm is listed as one of the “Best Lawyers in America” for Appellate Practice, one of only 27 Indiana attorneys to hold that distinction. He has represented more than 120 indigent clients on appeal, either individually or as part of the Appellate Clinic, which he created at the law school in 2008. Students working under his supervision have successfully briefed and argued cases in both the Indiana Court of Appeals and Indiana Supreme Court, including Tharp v. State, 942 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2011) (finding insufficient evidence for invasion of privacy); Graham v. State , 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009) (finding insufficient evidence for resisting law enforcement); Yanez v. State, 963 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (finding “absolutely no evidence of a concern or suspicion that a violation of law had occurred” in reversing the police stopping a man at a flea market); Kribs v. State , 917 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (finding insufficient evidence of entering a controlled airport with a weapon).
Professor Schumm’s own appellate work has included work on landmark sentencing cases, including Anglemyer v. State , 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007), which has been cited more than 4,000 times and established appellate review procedures for amended sentencing statutes, as well as amicus work in Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010) (vacating the Court of Appeals’ sua sponte increase of a sentence on appeal); Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. 2010) (discussing propriety of scoring models in sentencing hearings); Childress v. State , 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (holding that defendants may appeal any sentence in which the trial court exercises discretion); Smylie v. State , 823 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. 2005) (declaring Indiana’s sentence statutes unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington ). Professor Schumm also filed an amicus brief in support of rehearing on behalf of a bipartisan group of 71 legislators in Barnes v. State, 953 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. 2011).
Professor Schumm has also successfully represented clients on a wide variety of other claims. See, e.g., In re Termination of I.B., 933 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. 2010) (recognizing a right to appointed counsel in termination of parental rights’ appeals); Brown v. State , 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (holding the criminal confinement statute unconstitutionally vague and finding insufficient evidence of identity deception); Grier v. State , 868 N.E.2d 443 (Ind. 2007) (finding use of police chokeholds on suspects unconstitutional) ; M.T. v. State, 928 N.E.2d 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (finding Due Process violation in modification of juvenile placement); K.F. v. St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Health Care Ctr. , 909 N.E.2d 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (finding insufficient evidence of grave disability to support an involuntary civil commitment); L.H. v. State , 878 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (reversing juvenile adjudications because the court erred in incorporating testimony from a child hearsay hearing into the fact-finding hearing); McVey v. State , 863 N.E.2d 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (finding several probation conditions impermissibly vague); Johnson v. State , 856 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (finding no reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop); King v. State , 844 N.E.2d 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (holding trial court erred in failing to suppress defendant’s statement to police); Williams v. State , 819 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (concluding alleged victim’s prescription drug records were discoverable); M.C. v. State , 817 N.E.2d 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (reversing restitution order); A.H. v. State , 794 N.E.2d 1147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (finding insufficient evidence of possession of a destructive device).