ILNews

9 semi-finalists in running for justice spot

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nine attorneys remain in the running to be the next Indiana Supreme Court justice after a seven-member commission narrowed down a list of nearly three-dozen applicants earlier this month for the court opening.

After two days of interviewing 34 initial applicants, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission chose nine people as semi-finalists after about two hours of deliberation on July 7. Those individuals will return for second interviews at the end of the month, before three names are submitted to Gov. Mitch Daniels for consideration.

Whoever is chosen will succeed Justice Theodore R. Boehm, who announced earlier this year his plans to retire Sept. 30. This will be the Republican executive’s first chance to put someone on the high court.

The semi-finalist group consists four women and five men who in their professional legal roles offer a makeup of four trial judges, two big firm private practitioners, a law school general counsel, a state senator, and the state’s Solicitor General.

Following a unanimous public vote on the semi-finalists, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard – who chairs the commission – said that he initially expected fewer semi-finalists than the number chosen, but it was a direct result of having so many highly-qualified applicants to draw from.

Semi-finalists are, as arranged by the time they will have second interviews on July 30:
 

David David

8:45-9:15 a.m.: Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, who’s been on the bench since 1995 and also has had an active career with the Army Reserve. The judge said that he didn’t plan to re-engage in active duty and that he could retire anytime, so his service wouldn’t impact any judicial duties. He discussed his views on the use of international law in considering constitutional issues here. The judge also delved into his work drafting new parenting-time guidelines and the comments that are easy to understand for lawyers and litigants, as well as his experience as a special judge handling the high-profile Zolo Azania death penalty case where he ruled the state couldn’t proceed with that sentence after 23 years of delays and new trials. The state Supreme Court reversed him 3-2, and Judge David said he supports the idea of the death penalty in the right circumstances.
 

Fihser Tom Fisher

9:15-9:45 a.m.: Thomas M. Fisher, who has been Indiana’s solicitor general since the office was created in 2005, and previously worked in the Attorney General’s Office. Before joining the AG’s Office, he had worked at Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis and Jones Day in Washington, D.C. Fisher told commission members that he’d wanted to be a judge since clerking for Judge Michael Kanne on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that through the years he’d fine-tuned that consideration for where he would want to work. His current job won’t last forever and this justice position is the next logical step that fits well with his “career trajectory,” he said. He outlined characteristics for an ideal justice as someone having intellectual curiosity, a sense of fairness, dispassion, and “open-mindedness about where the law can take us.”
 

Emkes Emkes

9:45-10:15 a.m.: Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia S. Emkes, who’s been on the bench since 1987 after serving as a magistrate and working in private practice. Judge Emkes talked about the intense population growth in her county and how it’s impacted the court system, ending the random rotation of case filing and allowing judges to instead divide up amounts and specific types of cases. She also spoke about the emotional experience handling death penalty cases, such as the Michael Dean Overstreet case in 2000, and told members that it would be an honor for all Indiana trial judges to have one of their own appointed.
 

Boshkoff Boshkoff

10:30-11 a.m.: Indianapolis attorney Ellen E. Boshkoff, a partner at law firm Baker & Daniels for more than a decade and practicing for more than 20 years. During her interview, Boshkoff mentioned she’d been in the trenches and argued cases at both the trial and appellate levels and told members about her desire to learn more. Members delved into her background clerking for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and she explained her views that the economy was the biggest challenge the judiciary faces.
 

Mulvaney Karl Mulvaney

11-11:30 a.m.: Indianapolis attorney Karl L. Mulvaney, who’s been practicing since 1977 and is an appellate attorney with Bingham McHale. Drawing on Mulvaney’s service as Indiana Supreme Court Administrator from 1984 to 1991, the chief justice noted that he’d observed proceedings around the conference table in that room more than almost anyone. Mulvaney said it would be a “pinnacle” for any appellate lawyer to join the court, and he stressed the importance of being collegial, open-minded, and willing to listen. In response to a question about his appellate-only experience and lack of trial-level experience, Mulvaney said that he’d worked closely through the years with many trial attorneys and tried disciplinary, mandate of funds, and many other cases before the appellate courts.
 

Steele Steele

11:30 a.m.-12 p.m.: State Sen. Brent E. Steele, R-Bedford, who’s served in both the House and Senate and works as an attorney with the law office of Steele & Steele. The senator said his legislative work on both sides of the aisle has prepared him for the court, and he spoke about his lifetime commitment to public service. He spoke about his support of merit-selection versus judicial elections, and said campaign fundraising typically involves at least a public perception that a legislator will vote a certain way.
 

Moberly Robyn Moberly

1:15- 1:45 p.m.: Marion Superior Judge Robyn L. Moberly, who’s been on the bench since 1997 and previously had been a commissioner after working in private practice. She spoke about her experience handling various aspects of law, and said she loves to write and almost always takes cases under advisement for that writing and intellectual process.
 

Nation Nation

1:45-2:15 p.m.: Hamilton Superior Judge Steven R. Nation, who has been on the bench since 1995 and previously served as Hamilton County prosecutor. During his interview, he pointed out his experience as a prosecutor and judge and spoke about his efforts to try and reach kids early on to keep them out of the system later in life. As a judge, he tries to ensure consistency on the bench to give clear guidance to attorneys and litigants. Specific cases he mentioned included the Geist zoning case, which he said entailed 30,000 pages of documents.
 

Drew Drew

2:15-2:45 p.m.: Bloomington attorney Kiply S. Drew, who has served as associate general counsel at Indiana University in Bloomington since 1994. She told commission members during her first interview that she’d be good as a justice based on her intellect, writing ability, and appreciation for the role of the court.

But aside from those selected as semi-finalists, some of the most colorful and interesting comments came up during the two days of interviews and demonstrated the state bar’s colorful characters.

For example, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Elaine Brown was the only appellate jurist to apply for the post and unlike most applicants, she relied heavily on a prepared speech lasting more than 10 minutes to outline her initiatives and other ideas for the court. Lake Superior Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura stressed her experience handling juvenile cases, and made the statement that despite her groundbreaking involvement in televising juvenile proceedings that she didn’t generally think those types of cases should be televised to the public because of the sensitive nature.

During Miami Superior Judge Robert Spahr’s 20-minute interview, he discussed his two decades of experience as a child services attorney and harshly criticized the current direction of the state’s Department of Child Services and financially motivated decisions about juvenile justice. As a trial judge, he’s too concerned with micro-managing and service cuts and that makes his job more difficult. Judge Spahr also noted that he felt trial courts are often “confused” by appellate direction because there’s not enough direction or clarity, and he urged members to visit his personal website promoting his books to see how good a writer he is.

But one of the most interesting interviews came from Steuben Circuit Court Judge Allen Wheat, who’d opened his interview by telling members that he isn’t “the sharpest knife in the drawer.” The judge asked members rhetorically why litigants in a civil money case can get automatic judge changes but criminal cases involving liberty cannot. He also noted the rise of mediation in the past two decades has diminished the number of great trial lawyers, and how that has impacted the civility and professionalism of the practicing bar.

Ending his interview, Judge Wheat offered a monologue to the commission.

“How about a story, if that’s OK,” he said. “About an hour ago I was terribly nervous. For some reason I envisioned this antelope running across the African savannah. And he was going just as fast as he could. His heart was pounding and his nostrils were flaring and then all of a sudden there appeared a lioness that went right for the antelope’s throat. The antelope screamed in pain, rolled over, died. It’s over.

“I don’t wish to be that antelope,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT