ILNews

President picks prosecutor for Northern District

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The veteran federal prosecutor who's filled in three times as interim chief has been chosen for the permanent role as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, the White House announced this morning.

David Capp, who's been a federal prosecutor for 24 years, has been the acting U.S. Attorney in the Northern District since July 2007, filling the spot after Joseph Van Bokkelen's confirmation to the District Court. Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh nominated Capp for the job from several people who'd expressed interest in it and announced the nomination late Wednesday afternoon.

"He has a well-deserved record as a tough prosecutor, leading efforts to crack down on crime and root out public corruption," Bayh said in a news release. "He has served with distinction as Interim U.S. Attorney under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and he has the respect and support of Indiana law enforcement, judges, elected officials and community leaders. His legal experience, insight, background and temperament make him an excellent candidate for this difficult and important job."

Capp has worked for the U.S Attorney's Office since 1985, serving as second-in-command since 1991 and breaking up his tenure - in 1991 and again between 1999 and 2000 - to fill in as interim chief. Since taking the temporary post two years ago, Capp has continued his predecessor's push and reiterated his dedication to prosecute corrupt politicians, the office's hallmark activity. He said corruption prosecutions will remain a priority as long as he heads the office, and he's also said drug prosecutions should make the region safer for families.

Prior to federal service, Capp was a partner at Cohen & Thiros. He is a graduate of Valparaiso University School of Law.

This nomination requires Senate confirmation and that process, which begins at the Senate Judiciary Committee, will likely start in January. Sen. Bayh's spokesman Brian Weiss said there has been no indication when a nomination may come from the White House for the Southern District of Indiana, which has had Tim Morrison serving as acting U.S. Attorney since Susan Brooks left the job in 2007.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT