ILNews

Democrat stalwart said to be U.S. attorney nominee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The U.S. Attorney's Office in Southern District of Indiana has been without a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney for more than two years - an extraordinarily long stretch for a position that usually can be filled in half that time.

Political watchers point to President Barack Obama's taking longer than his past two predecessors to fill the nation's top 93 federal prosecutor appointments. In the Northern District of Indiana, the president nominated acting U.S. Attorney David Capp in late December to fill that district's vacancy. Capp has been interim U.S. Attorney since July 2007 when then U.S. Attorney Joseph Van Bokkelen joined the District Court. His nomination is still awaiting confirmation. But in Indianapolis, another factor is contributing to the delay.

Sources said high-profile trial lawyer Linda Pence in October withdrew her candidacy, which was fronted by Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, several months into the routine, yet extensive, vetting process.

Now the frontrunner for the post is Joe Hogsett, another Indianapolis lawyer, according to sources including Ed Treacy, chairman of the Marion County Democratic Party.

Neither Pence nor Hogsett would discuss details of their nominations, which they refused to even acknowledge.

Pence, who practices at the Indianapolis office of Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister, is a veteran white-collar criminal litigator. Her credentials include working at the Department of Justice from 1974 to 1983.

Hogsett, a partner at Indianapolis-based Bingham McHale, served as Indiana Secretary of State from 1989 to 1994, and was chief of staff for then-Gov. Bayh from 1995 to 1997.

"I think either one of them would make an excellent U.S. attorney," Treacy said. "Hopefully, they can get something done soon."

Because Bayh is foregoing an attempt at re-election in November, Treacy and other political insiders think a new U.S. attorney in Indianapolis could be named before he leaves office. Bayh gets to submit a candidate to the president because he's Indiana's senior senator belonging to the party occupying the White House. Phone calls to Sen. Bayh's office in Washington, D.C., were not returned.

After Obama's first year in office, just a third of his nominations had been confirmed by Congress, compared with more than half at roughly the same time under former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

"One might expect things to move more quickly, but this president has been slower to nominate U.S. attorney positions," said David Orentlicher, a former state representative and professor at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.

Both Orentlicher and Treacy attributed some of the cause for the delay to partisan politics.

"Because of the difficulty of the Republicans in the Senate holding everything up, that it would take such a long time to get done, [Pence] withdrew her name from being considered," Treacy said.

Senate-confirmed appointments to Department of Justice offices, particularly U.S. attorneys, are political in nature. They serve under the direction of the Attorney General and conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is involved. That includes the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the federal government, and the prosecution and defense of civil suits. Yet they really don't set policy but follow the strategies deemed important by the new administration, former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks said.

In Indianapolis, the U.S. attorney manages a staff of about 80, including roughly 30 lawyers.

The Southern District has been without a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney since Brooks left in October 2007, about a year before Obama was elected president. Given the short time remaining before the election, political experts said it wouldn't have made much sense for Bush to nominate a successor.

Brooks, now general counsel and vice president of work force and economic development at Ivy Tech Community College, can appreciate what Pence endured.

Background checks conducted by the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation are quite extensive and typically comb through a candidate's past dating to his or her college years.

Criminal, political and financial histories are explored, as well as even the views expressed in written documents, said Brooks, whose nomination took 10 months to get confirmed in October 2001.

Brooks doesn't fault former President Bush for failing to recommend a replacement for her. But the time that has elapsed without a permanent U.S. attorney is "what's getting long now," she said. Such an extended period of time without a permanent replacement can create uncertainties, said John Maley, a partner at Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg, who has a large federal practice. "It's not something that you would want to leave open indefinitely," he said, "just in terms of continuity and expectations and those types of things."

Moreover, having an interim U.S. attorney likely means the staff is short one lawyer, who is filling the position, Maley said.

That person would be Tim Morrison, a 20-year veteran of the Department of Justice, who has served as interim U.S. attorney twice before - in October 1993, and from February 2000 to October 2001. Morrison, who declined to specify a political slant, said he's not interested in being nominated for the job. "Politics has nothing to do with it," he said. "It's because I want to stay." U.S. attorneys are prevented from working in any position in the offices after they have finished serving. Morrison, like many of the lawyers on staff, boasts several years of federal legal experience. Newly appointed U.S. attorneys typically are prohibited from replacing staff, making turnover rare despite the enticements of a more lucrative private practice.

"They stay there because they love the work," Brooks said. "I think they love the fact that their client is the United States of America."

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. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT