ILNews

Indy magistrate gets Senate panel's approval

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis federal magistrate joins two of her colleagues in getting a U.S. Senate committee's approval to become an Article III judge for Indiana.

Earlier today, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the nomination of Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson for a judicial opening in the Southern District of Indiana. Committee members voted today after postponing discussion and vote on March 4, when members unanimously approved two other Hoosier nominees: Jon DeGuilio for the Northern District of Indiana and Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt for the Southern District of Indiana.

Ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., wanted to personally follow up with Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson before voting because he'd received a response from her the night before about questions following her Feb. 11 nomination hearing. His press office declined to elaborate on details of the meeting March 8, but the magistrate's online response showed the senator had concerns about her handling of capital cases, the death penalty, and recusal issues she's faced in the past.

If confirmed, Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson, who's been on at the federal court since 2007, would succeed U.S. Judge Larry McKinney, who took senior status in July 2009; Judge Pratt would succeed Judge David F. Hamilton, who was elevated last year to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals; and DeGuilio would fill a vacancy left by Judge Allen Sharp, who died in July 2009 after almost two years of senior status.

With this approval, the three nominees - chosen by President Barack Obama in mid-January - now must get approval from the full U.S. Senate, though no timetable exists for when that might happen. It's up to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to determine when they are brought up for discussion and a vote. The same process is in place for the nomination of Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington professor Dawn Johnsen, who received a party-line vote March 4 from the Senate committee. She was first nominated early last year and went through the confirmation process, but didn't get a vote in the full Senate and was ultimately re-nominated this year.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT