Sixth-generation Hoosier. Grew up in Portage, Indiana. B.A. with high distinction from Valparaiso University (1977) — double major in political science and psychology. J.D. from Valparaiso University Law School (1980).
Deputy then chief deputy prosecutor in Porter County. Porter Superior Court judge from 1992 to 2000. Appointed to the Court of Appeals in February 2000 by Governor Frank O'Bannon (D). Chief Judge from 2014 to 2019. Retained by voters in 2002, 2012, and 2022 — current term runs through December 31, 2032.
Founded the Porter County Victims Assistance Unit, the Porter County Sexual Assault Recovery Project, Domestic Violence Service, and the Valparaiso Law School Mediation Clinic. Led the countywide task force that built a new county jail. Co-author of Point Well Made: Persuasive Oral Advocacy. Trained lawyers prosecuting Rwandan war crimes and Mexican drug lords. Adjunct professor at IU Maurer School of Law (2011 Adjunct Professor of the Year).
Vaidik views the right to appeal as a constitutional guarantee — not a formality. In Young v. State (2022), she wrote that appellate courts have an affirmative duty to ensure proof at trial is sufficient, and explicitly warned against courts that merely rubber-stamp trial determinations regardless of how unreasonable they are.
She will notice sloppy briefing. She literally wrote the book on persuasive oral advocacy.
Vaidik authored a rare murder conviction reversal on insufficient evidence. She held that appellate courts have an affirmative duty to ensure the proof supports the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, and warned that a standard under which courts merely rubber-stamp fact-finder determinations would make the right to appeal illusory. Altice — also on the Allen panel — concurred.
Reversed a resisting law enforcement conviction, finding that pulling away and tightening up during arrest did not constitute forcible resistance. Demonstrates willingness to closely parse evidence even on lesser charges.
Reversed where there was no evidence of intent to sell. Shows she will not let the State coast on inferences unsupported by the record.
Dubois County native (Ferdinand, Indiana). Was a public school teacher for three years before attending law school. B.A. with distinction from Indiana University Bloomington (1976). J.D. from Indiana University (now Maurer) School of Law (1982).
First woman elected to the Indiana bench from Dubois County, at age 32. Dubois Superior Court judge from 1987–1998, then again from January 2005 to May 2008. Private practice in Jasper and Evansville between bench stints. Trial court had unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction.
Appointed to the Court of Appeals in May 2008 by Governor Mitch Daniels (R). Retained in 2010 and 2020 — current term through December 31, 2030. Created the Dubois County Drug Court, the county's first Community Corrections Advisory Board, and the Dubois County Substance Abuse Council. 2020 Indiana Lawyer Distinguished Barrister Award. 2024 graduate of Harvard Law School's Executive Judicial Leadership Program.
Brown follows the law where it leads, even when the outcome is uncomfortable — a principle that cuts both ways. Known for rigorous review on the appellate bench.
On criminal justice: she has advocated that the justice system should seize opportunities to turn lives around both in prison and upon release, and that the cost savings would be remarkable. Strong supporter of specialty courts — drug courts, veterans courts, mental health courts.
Her career-long focus on substance abuse and mental health conditions is directly relevant to the involuntary confession argument in Allen's appeal — Allen's psychotic deterioration under solitary confinement at Westville.
Brown authored a reversal where DCS conceded there was no evidence a mother's marijuana use harmed her child. She wrote that overburdened systems would be better served focusing time, efforts, and resources on the families who really need them. Shows willingness to push back on government overreach when evidence is lacking.
Sat on a panel that vacated attempted murder and battery convictions because a speedy trial request was not met, then doubled down on rehearing. Shows she holds the State to procedural requirements.
Concurred with Vaidik on a sentencing reversal that directed the trial court to consider a dramatically higher sentence in a child abuse case. Demonstrates alignment with Vaidik on following the law to its logical conclusion regardless of which side benefits.
B.A. from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. M.S. in criminal justice administration from the University of Central Missouri (Graduate Student of the Year). J.D. from the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law (1987).
Deputy prosecutor and then Chief Deputy Prosecutor (Drug Unit) in Jackson County, Missouri. Medical malpractice defense in Kansas City. Insurance defense at Wooden McLaughlin & Sterner in Indianapolis. Deputy prosecutor in the Marion County Prosecutor's Office (1994–2000), where he became Chief of the Felony Division managing 35 deputy prosecutors and tried 100+ major felony jury trials including 25 murder cases.
Elected to Marion Superior Court in 2000. Criminal Division 2 from 2001–2012: 250 major felony jury trials, 75 murder trials, 7 death penalty cases. Presiding Judge of Marion Superior Court from 2009–2011 ($50M budget, 850+ staff). Moved to civil division 2013–2015. Appointed to the Court of Appeals in September 2015 by Governor Mike Pence (R) — Pence's first appellate court appointee. Chief Judge since January 1, 2023.
Altice's record speaks more than any single statement. He has the heaviest criminal law resume on the panel — both as a prosecutor who personally tried 25 murder cases and as a trial judge who presided over 75 murder trials and 7 death penalty cases.
His Master's in criminal justice administration is unique on this panel and suggests academic grounding in systemic criminal justice issues — not just legal doctrine. His experience with death penalty cases means he has sat through the highest-stakes version of every procedural fight present in Allen's appeal: search warrant challenges, confession voluntariness disputes, alternative suspect evidence, and cumulative error arguments. His most personally significant capital case was State v. Turner (2009), where he presided over the bench trial and LWOP sentencing of Desmond Turner for seven murders — a case Altice later said "stuck with him throughout his career."
Chief Judge status gives him institutional authority on the court but does not give him extra votes. His concurrence in the Young murder reversal — joining Vaidik over a dissent — is the single most important indicator that he is not reflexively pro-conviction.
Concurred with Vaidik's rare murder reversal on insufficient evidence. Did not write separately but joined the majority over the dissent. This is the most important data point: two of the three Allen panelists have already agreed to reverse a murder conviction together.
Authored opinion affirming murder conviction and 115-year sentence in a poisoning/strangulation case. Rejected double jeopardy, sufficiency, and sentencing challenges. Demonstrates he can and does affirm serious convictions when the record supports them.
Found aggravated battery was factually included in attempted murder, reversed that conviction, remanded for vacation. Shows careful attention to constitutional limits on conviction. Notable: Brown was on this panel — the two sat together on a criminal reversal.
Affirmed aiding murder conviction but rejected the State's cross-appeal on conspiracy, finding the trial court properly declined to enter dual convictions. Not reflexively pro-State — he denied the prosecution's own attempt to expand the conviction.
The Allen appeal appears to be the first criminal case all three judges have decided together. The working relationships are all pairwise — but the pairwise data is extensive, consistent, and revealing.
Vaidik and Altice have never disagreed on a criminal case — not once across 19 shared opinions. This includes the Young murder reversal, where Altice chose Vaidik's position over a dissenting colleague.
When Vaidik and Brown disagree (twice in 21 cases), Vaidik dissented because she wanted to reverse when Brown affirmed — meaning Vaidik is more defendant-favorable than Brown in the cases where they split. Brown never dissented from Vaidik. When Altice and Brown disagree (twice in 19 cases), it goes both directions — Brown once dissented from Altice's affirmance (Passarelli), and Altice once dissented from Brown's reversal (Tillett).
The practical implication: if Vaidik votes to reverse, Altice has historically followed every time. Brown is the true swing vote — but even she agrees with both colleagues roughly 90% of the time.
Download master data (CSV) — All extracted opinions and panel compositions.
Vaidik authored a rare murder conviction reversal on insufficient evidence. Altice concurred over a dissent from Judge Crone. Vaidik wrote that appellate courts have an affirmative duty to ensure proof is sufficient and warned against courts that rubber-stamp trial determinations. Two of the three Allen panelists reversed a murder conviction together — and have never disagreed on a criminal case.
Vaidik dissented from Brown twice — in Brummett (2024) and Atwood (2021). In both cases, Brown affirmed and Vaidik wanted to reverse. This means when Vaidik and Brown split, Vaidik is the more defendant-favorable judge. For Allen's appeal, this suggests that if Allen's arguments are strong enough for Brown, they're almost certainly strong enough for Vaidik.
Issue: During a traffic stop, an officer patted down the defendant and discovered methamphetamine through "plain feel." The defendant moved to suppress. Brown affirmed, holding the search was valid under Terry v. Ohio or as a search incident to arrest. Vaidik dissented, arguing the State failed to prove either exception to the warrant requirement applied and she would have reversed and suppressed the evidence.
Allen mapping: Direct parallel to Issue I. Vaidik is the most protective of Fourth Amendment rights on this panel — she would have suppressed evidence that Brown allowed. For Allen's Franks challenge to the search warrant, Vaidik is the judge most likely to find the probable cause affidavit defective. Brown is the harder sell on warrant/search issues, and Altice's prosecution background makes him the hardest. This confirms the profile's assessment that the search warrant is the "hardest path" — but also shows Vaidik is a genuine vote for suppression when she thinks the State hasn't met its burden.
Issue: After a traffic stop, the defendant was charged with OWI. The stopping officer did not testify at trial. Altice reversed, finding that without that officer's testimony the State failed to establish particularized suspicion for the stop or that police conduct was reasonable. Vaidik concurred. The Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer (pending).
Allen mapping: Altice — the judge with the heaviest prosecution background — authored a reversal on Fourth Amendment grounds because the State's evidentiary foundation was insufficient. This shows Altice is reachable on search/seizure issues when the State fails to put its evidence in the trial record. For Allen's warrant challenge, if the defense can show the PCA is fundamentally misleading compared to what was actually known, even Altice has shown he'll reverse.
Issue: Murder defendant wanted to present expert PTSD testimony as defense evidence. Trial court excluded it. Altice affirmed — the objective "reasonable person" standard doesn't change based on the defendant's mental state. Brown dissented, arguing the testimony should be admitted because PTSD can significantly color a person's perception of danger.
Allen mapping: Direct parallel to Issue III. Allen argues Judge Gull wrongly excluded third-party suspect evidence (Odinism/ritual theory). Brown has already broken from Altice on this exact question — whether a murder defendant's evidence was improperly excluded. If she applies the same reasoning, she sides with Allen on evidence exclusion.
Issue: Voluntary manslaughter. Prosecutor introduced "eggshell victim" doctrine in closing for the first time — a misstatement of law never raised at trial. Vaidik and Brown reversed for prosecutorial misconduct and fundamental error, over Bradford's dissent arguing waiver.
Allen mapping: Allen's appeal raises Napue/Brady issues — the prosecution's duty to correct false testimony (Weber) and disclose exculpatory evidence. The State's primary defense is waiver. Vaidik and Brown have already overridden a waiver argument to reverse a homicide conviction for prosecutorial misconduct. (Note: the Indiana Supreme Court later reinstated the Konkle conviction, which means this COA panel's threshold for finding fundamental error may be higher than the Supreme Court's — but the willingness is documented.)
Issue: Drug dealing conviction. Trial court imposed fully executed 18-year sentence. Vaidik reversed, finding addiction was the underlying source of criminal behavior, one failed treatment opportunity shouldn't preclude reform, and the defendant's visual impairment was a significant mitigator. Brown concurred. Sentence reduced to 4 years executed with substance abuse treatment.
Allen mapping: Allen's involuntary confession argument centers on psychotic deterioration under solitary confinement at Westville. Vaidik and Brown have demonstrated they take mental health conditions seriously as mitigating factors and are willing to override a trial court's harsher judgment when the record supports it. Brown's drug court background and Vaidik's victims' assistance work both align with this posture.
Issue: Child molestation case. Defendant had schizophrenia spectrum disorder and exhibited psychotic behaviors. The trial court denied her belated motion to present an insanity defense. Brown reversed, finding the denial was an abuse of discretion and that permitting the belated insanity notice would have been in the interest of justice. Altice dissented, arguing the trial court's denial should be affirmed. The Indiana Supreme Court later accepted transfer and affirmed the conviction (April 2026).
Allen mapping: Brown reversed to protect a defendant's right to present a mental health defense — over Altice's dissent. This directly parallels Allen's argument that his psychotic deterioration made his confessions involuntary and that the trial court wrongly excluded evidence of his mental state. Brown has demonstrated she will break from Altice specifically to protect a defendant's mental health claims. The Supreme Court's later reversal of Brown's decision is notable — it means her threshold for protecting mental health defenses is lower than the Supreme Court's — but at the COA level, she is a real vote for Allen on this issue.
Vaidik authored and Altice concurred in Young v. State, reversing a murder conviction on insufficient evidence over a dissent. This is the single most important data point for predicting panel behavior. Two of the three judges on the Allen panel have already agreed to reverse a murder conviction when the record warranted it. Vaidik's anti-rubber-stamp philosophy is not merely rhetorical — Altice signed onto it.
In a murder case, the trial court excluded expert testimony about the defendant's PTSD as defense evidence. Altice authored the opinion affirming the exclusion. Brown dissented — she argued the PTSD evidence should have been admitted because it was relevant to the defendant's reasonable belief he was in danger. This is the exact posture of Allen's Issue III: the trial court excluded defense evidence (third-party suspect theory), and Allen argues the exclusion denied him the right to present a complete defense. Brown has already shown she will break from Altice on this specific question — whether a murder defendant's evidence was wrongly excluded.
In a voluntary manslaughter case, the prosecutor introduced an "eggshell victim" doctrine in closing argument for the first time — never raised at trial. Vaidik authored and Brown concurred in reversing the conviction for prosecutorial misconduct and fundamental error, over a dissent from Judge Bradford. The dissenter argued waiver — the same procedural defense the State raises in Allen's appeal. Vaidik and Brown overrode the waiver argument to find fundamental error. The Indiana Supreme Court later reinstated the conviction, but the COA decision shows these two judges will reverse a homicide conviction for prosecutorial misconduct even when the defense failed to perfectly preserve the issue.
All three judges have deep criminal law experience — this is not a panel that will be confused by complex evidentiary or procedural arguments. Combined, they represent prosecutorial experience (Vaidik as chief deputy prosecutor, Altice as felony division chief), extensive trial court experience (all three were trial judges), and 50+ years of combined appellate service.
These rates measure how often each judge finds reversible error (full reversal, partial reversal, or remand) in criminal cases they author. The typical national appellate affirmance rate is 80%+. This panel runs 54–63% affirm — meaning they find reversible error in a third to two-fifths of their criminal cases. This is not a rubber-stamp panel by any measure.
All counts are complete. Reversal rates directionally accurate; not precise to the percentage point.
Brown's drug court and mental health court background makes her potentially the most receptive panelist to the argument that Allen's confessions were products of psychotic deterioration. Vaidik's prosecution background included founding a victims' assistance unit — she understands institutional conditions. Altice presided over death penalty cases where confession voluntariness is always contested. All three have the framework to evaluate this claim seriously.
The defense's strongest argument is that Allen confessed to molesting his daughter and sister (both denied it at trial), confessed while smearing feces and drinking toilet water, and couldn't remember confessing days later — the confessions carry their own impeachment.
Vaidik's demonstrated willingness to reverse when the right to present a defense is compromised aligns with this issue. The third-party defense exclusion is the most legally straightforward of the three issues — Indiana law on the right to present a complete defense is well-established. Brown's rigorous review standard applies here. Altice, having presided over murder trials where alternative suspect evidence was offered, knows the line between relevant defense evidence and speculative misdirection.
Altice's prosecution background makes him the hardest sell here. Franks v. Delaware challenges require showing deliberate or reckless misstatements or omissions in the affidavit — a high bar. However, if the defense can show that the probable cause affidavit is fundamentally misleading when compared to the State's own exhibits and witness statements, even a prosecution-oriented judge should take notice. The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree argument flowing from the warrant is the structural backbone — if the warrant falls, the physical evidence falls.
The State did not respond to the cumulative error argument. If the panel finds error on any individual issue but not enough standing alone to warrant reversal, the cumulative error doctrine becomes the vehicle for a new trial. The State's silence on this point is a significant strategic gap — the panel may treat the argument as conceded or at minimum uncontested. This is not automatic, but it means the defense's framing stands without rebuttal.
| Year | Disposed | Civil | Criminal |
| 2024 | (957) | 2.8% | 2.9% |
| 2015 | (893) | 4.9% | 1.6% |
| 2003 | (1,091) | 4.2% | 1.1% |
| Outcome | 2024 Rate | 2015 Rate |
| Affirmed (conviction upheld) | 89.1% | 86.3% |
| Reversed or Remanded | 9.5% | 12.9% |
| Post-conviction appeals affirmed | 97.0% | — |
The defense requested oral argument and the panel granted it — all three judges concurred. The argument will be webcast live at www.IN.gov/judiciary. All three judges are experienced oral advocates and educators — Vaidik literally wrote a book on persuasive oral advocacy, Brown teaches trial advocacy at IU Maurer, and Altice tried 100+ felony jury trials. They will ask sharp questions.
Oral argument favors the defense here because the State's brief has significant gaps that are harder to paper over in live questioning. When a judge asks "What is your response to the cumulative error argument?" — and there is no written response in the brief — the State's attorney has to improvise in real time.
This is not a panel that will be confused, rushed, or deferential. All three have tried or presided over murder cases. Two of the three have already reversed a murder conviction together (Young v. State, 2022). The third — Brown — is the judge whose background in mental health courts and drug courts makes her potentially the most receptive to the involuntary confession argument that is the emotional center of Allen's appeal.
The defense's strongest path runs through the involuntary confessions and cumulative error — issues where the panel's combined expertise is deepest and the State's briefing is weakest. The hardest path is the search warrant challenge, where Altice's prosecution background and the high Franks bar create the steepest hill. But even there, the defense has the structural advantage of a corrected PCA analysis that the State's brief does not meaningfully engage.
The State's unaddressed arguments — cumulative error, Glossip, Banks, the ISP Blair/Carbaugh statement — will be visible to all three judges. Whether those silences are treated as concessions, strategic choices, or irrelevant will depend on the record and the law. But this panel has the background to notice every gap.
Altice's 7 death penalty cases: Five identified. In Turner (2009), bench trial and LWOP for seven murders — the case Altice said stuck with him. In Azania (2008), special judge resentencing after two Supreme Court death sentence reversals — 60+14 years under plea agreement. In Voss (2005), capital child murder case received after original judge removed for anti-DP bias. In Veal (2003), murder/rape trial, LWOP. In Ison v. State (2017), Altice authored a COA post-conviction opinion where the defendant argued counsel failed to explain that his drug use and mental illness history were potential mitigators against death/LWOP eligibility — Altice engaged closely enough with the statutory framework to initially identify what he believed was a technical error in the death penalty statute. Two cases remain unidentified.
Cumulative error doctrine: No overlap case involving cumulative error has been identified. This remains the Allen issue with the least panel-specific data — and it's the issue the State left unanswered.
Franks v. Delaware challenges specifically: Brummett and Ramos-Osario address Fourth Amendment search issues, but neither involves a warrant affidavit challenge. A case where any panelist evaluated deliberate or reckless omissions in a probable cause affidavit would be the most directly predictive data for Allen's Issue I.
Young v. State — Indiana Lawyer Coverage
Brown — Leadership in Law 2020
Indiana Appellate Decisions — Criminal opinion searches for each judge (public.courts.in.gov)