Advancing Evidence-Based Pretrial in Indiana: Judicial Spotlight: Judge Mark Spitzer, Grant County , IN

Indiana's Evidence-Based Pretrial Framework: Built Through Collaboration, Data and Judicial Leadership.

Indiana has become a leading example of how multidisciplinary collaboration and evidence-based decision-making can strengthen pretrial systems. In this Judicial Spotlight, Judge Mark Spitzer of Grant Circuit Court reflects on Indiana’s journey, the role of JRAC and EBDM, and the principles that continue to shape pretrial practice across the state.

Indiana’s Pretrial Story

Q: For those unfamiliar, can you briefly share “The Indiana Story” and how EBDM and JRAC have shaped pretrial practices in your state?

"Indiana’s pretrial transformation began with a broader concept: system alignment through collaboration. Drawing from a medical model—where outcomes improved through research, education, and coordinated implementation—criminal justice leaders explored how similar principles could be applied to justice systems.

Grant County became one of seven national pilot sites for the Evidence-Based Decision-Making (EBDM) Initiative, bringing together stakeholders across the system—judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation, community corrections, treatment providers, and local government. The goal was simple but powerful: better collaboration leads to better outcomes.

As the work progressed, Indiana expanded EBDM statewide. Through a multidisciplinary state-level committee, pretrial was identified as a key “change target.” This led to the development of Indiana’s evidence-based pretrial system—not as a top-down mandate, but as a collaborative effort across all justice system partners. Today, that work continues through the Justice Reinvestment Advisory Council (JRAC) and the Indiana Pretrial Release Committee—both grounded in the same collaborative, evidence-driven principles that started in Grant County.

“Indiana’s evidence-based pretrial system was built collaboratively, with stakeholders across the justice system asking: How can we do this the best way?”

Judicial Background and Leadership

 Q: Please share a brief overview of your judicial background and your involvement with the Indiana Pretrial Initiative.

"I serve as a Circuit Court Judge with general jurisdiction, including criminal law and high-level felony cases, so pretrial decision-making is a regular part of my work. Over time, I became involved in Indiana’s statewide EBDM efforts, co-chaired pretrial initiatives, and was later appointed by the Chief Justice to chair the Indiana Pretrial Release Committee. I have also served as the Indiana Judges Association’s representative on the Indiana Bail Commission and have had the opportunity to teach judges and other stakeholders about pretrial practices. Those roles have allowed me to engage with pretrial from the bench, at the policy level, and through judicial education."

Why Pretrial Reform Matters

Q: What inspired your commitment to improving pretrial decision-making in Indiana?

 Anyone who has worked within a traditional cash bail system has seen its limitations. For Judge Spitzer, evidence-based pretrial offered a better way. Rather than relying on assumptions, it gives judges better information to make more principled decisions about who can be safely released and under what conditions.

"If you’ve spent time on the bench under a traditional cash bail system, you quickly see its limitations. You set bail expecting someone will be released—and they aren’t. Or you set bail expecting detention—and they post it.

Historically, cash bail has not done a good job addressing public safety or ensuring appropriate release decisions. That realization led me to ask: is there a better way.

Evidence-based pretrial provides that better way. It gives judges more information to make informed decisions about who can be safely released and under what conditions. We know most individuals can be safely released pretrial, and most do not engage in misconduct. The key is having a principled, data-informed approach to decision-making."

Why It Matters: Evidence-based pretrial helps judges:

• Make more informed release decisions
• Better protect public safety
• Respect due process and the presumption of innocence
• Reduce unnecessary detention

Collaboration as Infrastructure

 Q: Indiana has a strong JRAC infrastructure. How does your state’s approach compare to a Court Coordinating Council model?

 Judge Spitzer describes them as essentially serving the same purpose: bringing multidisciplinary voices together to identify challenges, align strategy, and improve outcomes across the system. Indiana’s success has come in large part from maintaining that collaborative structure over time.

The Role of Data

 Q: Data has been central to Indiana’s pretrial work. How is pretrial data being used to inform judicial decision-making and system improvement?

 Data is a core component of evidence-based practice. Judge Spitzer emphasizes that systems should measure what they are doing, examine whether it is effective, and adjust accordingly. Indiana’s use of data has helped demonstrate that evidence-based release practices can improve outcomes without compromising public safety.

"Data is foundational to evidence-based pretrial. One of the core EBDM principles is to measure what you’re doing and respond accordingly. If something isn’t working, you change it. If it is working, you strengthen and expand it.

Data also plays a critical role in addressing misinformation. There are many misconceptions about pretrial release and public safety. By analyzing outcomes over time, we can demonstrate that evidence-based practices enhance—not diminish—public safety.

Equally important is ensuring that data reaches policymakers and decision-makers. That’s how systems evolve and improve."

“If what you’re doing is not effective, you should change it. If it is effective, you should keep doing it—and maybe even broaden it”

Data is not just for reporting. It is for:

• Continuous quality improvement
• Policy development
• Transparency
• Public education
• Judicial decision support
• Community trust

Certification and Professional Practice

 Q: Indiana has implemented a pretrial certification framework. What led to that decision?

"Indiana’s certification model grew out of its earlier success with problem-solving courts, including drug courts and veterans treatment courts. In those settings, certification helped ensure that programs were using best practices and achieving stronger outcomes. That same framework translated well to pretrial. Programs receive education, are observed in practice, and are given feedback on how to align more closely with best practices."

For Judge Spitzer, certification has helped professionalize the field and build confidence in the consistency and quality of pretrial services. Review Indiana's Pretrial Services Certification Rules.

The Judicial Perspective

 Q: What aspects of pretrial reform are you most passionate about from the judicial perspective?

 Judge Spitzer returns often to one central tension: balancing the presumption of innocence and due process with public safety. That is where the judicial role becomes especially important. Evidence-based pretrial gives judges better tools and better information, helping them make decisions that are more principled, more consistent, and more just.

"It comes down to balance—presumption of innocence, due process, and public safety. There is inherent tension in that balance, and getting it right is critical.

The best way to navigate that is by equipping judges with reliable information and education. When judges understand the data, the research, and the available tools, they can make better, more principled decisions. That ultimately benefits both individuals in the system and the broader community."

“We are serving the public best when we make these decisions in the best way that we can.”

Challenges Ahead

 Q: What do you see as the greatest opportunity—or challenge—currently facing pretrial systems?

 One of Indiana’s biggest emerging questions is how to approach preventative detention if constitutional and statutory changes move forward. Judge Spitzer notes that any such implementation must remain faithful to best practices, due process, and the practical realities of jail overcrowding.

He also points to an ongoing communications challenge: correcting the misconception that public safety is best achieved by detaining everyone. That approach, he notes, carries enormous costs for individuals, families, communities, and local systems.

"In Indiana, a major challenge is the potential implementation of preventative detention through a constitutional amendment. The question becomes: how do we implement that in a way that maintains fidelity to evidence-based practices, protects due process, and avoids unnecessary jail overcrowding?

More broadly, there is an ongoing “information battle.” Misconceptions about pretrial can drive policies that favor unnecessary detention. In reality, overuse of detention has significant financial and human costs—and often isn’t needed to maintain public safety."

Current Challenges

• Preventative detention policy changes
• Protecting due process
• Avoiding unnecessary jail overcrowding
• Countering misinformation about pretrial release

Proud Accomplishment

Q: Looking back, what accomplishment related to pretrial improvement are you most proud of?

 Judge Spitzer points to his role in helping build Indiana’s evidence-based pretrial system, but he is just as proud of the culture surrounding it. Indiana has not settled for maintaining the status quo. Instead, it has created a structure that continues to evaluate itself, learn from research, and improve over time.

“We’re not satisfied with the status quo—we’re continuing to move forward.”

"I’m proud of the role I’ve played—alongside many others—in developing Indiana’s evidence-based pretrial system.

What excites me most is not just what we’ve built, but how we’ve built it: a system committed to continuous improvement. We are not satisfied with the status quo. We evaluate, adapt, and evolve based on data and research. That mindset is what gives this work long-term promise."

Advice to Other Jurisdictions

 Q: What guidance would you offer to jurisdictions beginning or advancing pretrial reform efforts?

 His advice is straightforward: do not reinvent the wheel.

“There is already strong work happening across Indiana and around the country, and the pretrial field is notable for its willingness to share tools, lessons, and innovations.

Jurisdictions do not have to start from scratch. Many low-cost and no-cost resources already exist, and learning from others can accelerate progress.”

Priorities for the Future

 What priorities should stakeholders focus on to continue strengthening pretrial practice?

Judge Spitzer emphasizes support for frontline practitioners. Indiana’s coordinators have had a meaningful voice in shaping the state’s work, and that feedback loop has been one of its greatest strengths.

By creating a safe and collaborative environment for coordinators to share concerns, ideas, and practical lessons, Indiana has reinforced the idea that systems are only as strong as the people doing the day-to-day work.

"Ultimately, systems are only as strong as the people implementing them. Empowering those individuals has been one of our most important decisions."

Final Reflection

 Q: What should readers take away from this work?

 For Judge Spitzer, the message is simple: this work matters.

Pretrial systems affect real lives—not only those charged with offenses, but also victims, families, and communities. Evidence-based approaches create a better opportunity to balance those interests fairly, thoughtfully, and effectively.

"This work is worth the effort.

In the criminal justice system, we’re talking about real lives—not just individuals charged with offenses, but also victims and entire communities. Evidence-based pretrial gives us the ability to better balance those competing interests than we have historically.

If you haven’t started this work, I encourage you to. It matters—and it makes a difference."

“This work is worth the effort.”

Indiana’s progress in pretrial reform reflects years of intentional collaboration, thoughtful leadership, and a willingness to evolve. Judge Mark Spitzer has helped shape that work from the bench, through statewide committees, and in the education of judges and practitioners across the state. His perspective is a reminder that strong pretrial systems are built not only on policy, but on principle, partnership, and persistence.