ILNews

New chief defender chosen

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indianapolis defense attorney Robert J. Hill Jr. is poised to be the next top public defender in the state's largest county.

The Marion County Public Defender Agency's governing board voted March 12 for him to lead the agency after David E. Cook resigns for private practice in mid-April. Cook notified the nine-member board of his decision in December to leave the office after 13 years at the helm, setting in motion a search for his successor.

To help facilitate the transition, Cook agreed today to stay on until April 20.

A public meeting earlier this afternoon entailed an interview of finalists Hill and Indianapolis attorney Eric K. Koselke, who were chosen from 10 original applicants for the job. A third finalist, Mark Kamish of Franklin, withdrew prior to the meeting.

Seven board members voted unanimously for Hill's appointment, with board member Rick Kammen abstaining because he and Hill work at the same firm, Gilroy Kammen & Hill. He noted that he didn't see any conflict, but agreed not to vote. Board member Jon Bailey didn't attend the meeting.

Both finalists had extensive ties to the agency and experience in handling a range of criminal cases, including multiple death penalty cases. Each candidate spoke briefly about their backgrounds, why they wanted the position, and what they saw for the future of the office.

"I've always had an interest and passion for public defense, and believe I can really make a difference for the office," Hill said. "As lawyers, if we don't take care of those without money the same as those with it, the system will break down. It's a calling for all of us."

Admitted to practice in January 1982, Hill has worked as deputy chief public defender from 1994 to 2000, and as a part-time public defender since 1983 on juvenile and major felony cases. Hill is a board member for the Indiana Public Defender Council and has served as a past chairman; he also stepped down from the county defender agency's board recently to apply for this slot. Currently, he works as a contract public defender for Indiana Federal Community Defenders, aside from his private practice.

His goals for the office include being able to transition to a full-time staff, be able to adequately fund the agency, and increase mentoring opportunities within the office, he told the board.

Now, the City-County Council must sign off on Hill's appointment before it takes effect. The board's legal counsel today planned to get the nomination to the council on Thursday so that it could be brought up at the next meeting March 24, but he didn't know if the council could immediately vote or if the issue would have to be referred to a public safety committee before a final vote.

If the council doesn't vote by Cook's departure April 20, Hill will temporarily lead the agency as interim director until the confirmation process is complete, the board voted today.
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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT