ILNews

3 remain in running for Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two trial judges and an appellate attorney have emerged as finalists for the Indiana Supreme Court, but one those three almost didn’t make it to Indianapolis for the second interview on Friday.

Story continues below


After nearly five hours of interviews and nearly two hours of deliberation, the seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission on Friday selected Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, and Indianapolis attorney Karl Mulvaney as finalists for the high court opening.

But Judge David almost didn’t make it to Indianapolis that day.

“I thought I’d be stuck on the side of the road when I was supposed to be sitting there in front of the commission,” Judge David told Indiana Lawyer today, laughing about his car trouble late last week that almost interfered with the appellate interview.

Getting behind the wheel that morning, the judge said he discovered a squirrel had eaten through some of the wiring and he ended up driving on four out of eight engine cylinders and with no air conditioning.

“A squirrel attempted to sabotage my bid,” he said. “Of all the worst possible days for car problems, it happens then. I barely made it down there, and barely made it back.”

He was the first interview, starting at 8:45 a.m. The remaining eight semi-finalists appeared for their 30-minute interviews throughout the day, before the commission members met privately at 3 p.m. to deliberate. After two hours of discussion, the members publicly announced their decision about 5 p.m.

Judge David got the news as he was standing in the auto repair shop, listening to the mechanic explain what had happened and what it would cost. He stepped away from the counter to take the news about his being chosen as a finalist for the state’s highest court.

“I’m simply honored and humbled, and I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was excited,” the judge said. “You have to be impressed with the process and the openness of it all.”

The other two finalists echoed those thoughts, with Mulvaney and Judge Moberly also expressing their excitement about the process overall and being selected as finalists. Judge Moberly talked about feeling very comfortable during her second interview, though it went by very quickly because of the “fun mix of commission members who are warm and engaging people.”

"I can't imagine ever being better," Judge Moberly said after receiving the news on Friday. “I'm thrilled and humbled to be one of the three finalists being sent to the governor.”

Now, it’s up to Gov. Mitch Daniels to decide who’ll be the next Indiana Supreme Court justice. Whoever is chosen will be the Republican governor’s first appointment to the state’s highest court, the first new justice since 1999, and he or she will succeed Justice Theodore R. Boehm once he retires from the bench Sept. 30.

Aside from the three finalists, those who made it past the first round of cuts were: Indianapolis attorney Ellen Boshkoff with Baker & Daniels; Indiana University associate general counsel Kipley Drew; Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia Emkes; Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher; Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation; and State Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford.

Each person began their interview with a congratulatory welcome from Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who chairs the commission. He then asked each semi-finalist to address a two-part question sent out by the commission: "What do you consider your finest professional accomplishment or contribution?" and "Name two things that need improving in the Indiana court system that a justice might help solve."

All raised points about what they might tackle if they were a member of the court, and then responded to other questions posed by commission members – their views on approaching issues of first impression, how they might complement the current court makeup, what the judiciary’s three most pressing issues are, and how justices should factor in political, economic, and social ramifications in decision making.

A full rundown of the interviews by all nine semi-finalists can be found at Indiana Lawyer’s blog, First Impressions.

The governor’s general counsel, David Pippen, said the 60-day clock begins ticking once Daniels receives an official evaluation report on the three finalists from the nominating commission; that’s expected this week. Interviews will likely be scheduled “pretty quickly,” and there’s really no set procedure for how that interview process will happen. Whether one interview will take place or finalists will be invited back for a second informal interview hasn’t been determined, but it will be up to the governor to decide. Pippen said he doesn’t expect the governor will come close to running the 60-day deadline, but if Daniels doesn’t meet that deadline, the chief justice would make an appointment from the same list.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT