ILNews

7 interview for COA; 3 finalists to be chosen

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Judicial Nominating Commission interviewed seven semi-finalists today for an opening on the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Now, the seven-member commission is deciding which three will be recommended to Gov. Mitch Daniels as finalists to succeed Judge John T. Sharpnack on the state's second highest appellate court.

Commission members conducted a second round of interviews with the seven semi-finalists, who were chosen in mid-November from an original 15 applicants.

Facing interviews today were: Dubois Superior Judge Elaine B. Brown, Morgan Superior Judge Jane Spencer Craney, Wayne Superior Judge P. Thomas Snow, Dearborn Superior Judge G. Michael Witte, Sen. Brent E. Steele of Bedford firm Steele & Steele, Leslie C. Shively of Shively & Associates in Evansville, and Stephen J. Johnson, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council.

Each focused their 20- to 30-minute interviews on what they consider their two finest career accomplishments and what two items most need improving at the court.

As far as proudest accomplishments, candidates' responses ranged from specific cases or projects they've handled to various relationships they've nurtured throughout their legal careers.

Judge Snow gave a humbling response after telling the commission about his work on the Judicial Administration Commission and developing the state's weighted caseload system in the 1990s.

"I don't mean to be flippant when I say this, but this is," he said about one of his finest accomplishments. "It's truly an honor to be among the seven highly qualified candidates, and it feels like I'm carrying the ball for the entire east side of the state."

Every candidate spoke about their interest in seeing a new, sixth judicial district added to the court to help keep up with growing caseloads, as well as a push for utilizing technology and e-filing, and making the appellate court more visible to Indiana residents.

One idea that some of the candidates touched on was the need for appellate mediation, specifically post-trial court judgment. Judge Brown mentioned the idea first, noting that it could be used in civil cases by delaying appeal filing by 45 days to get a 25 or 30 percent settlement rate, as seen in other states using the method.

In addition, Judge Brown also brought up several points that expanded on or added new points to what her fellow candidates mentioned. She suggested that appellate attorneys go through a certification process to make sure they have adequate experience and continuing legal education, as well as stationing some appellate judges in their respective judicial districts rather than Indianapolis to help the court's outreach.

Judge Craney noted that it could be time to revisit the court's policy on written opinions and whether more summary affirmations could be made.

At the end of his interview, Judge Witte described his one-time dream of being an Indiana High School Athletic Association referee and used a basketball analogy to describe how he would address competing parties' interests in appeals.

"One thing I learned is you don't care who wins, but by golly you make sure there's a level playing field," he said.

Only Steele and Shively came to the interviews as private practitioners currently representing clients, a point that commissioners focused on and at least one member pointed to as an important issue when considering finalists.

"We're looking at that hard and seriously," said commissioner Sherrill Colvin, an attorney from Fort Wayne.

Once the commission officially submits its recommendations, the governor has 60 days to make a decision. That person will replace Judge Sharpnack when he retires in May.

See the Indiana Lawyer Web site for updates.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT