ILNews

New chief public defender? Not yet

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Nine people will soon decide whom they want to see as the next chief public defender for Indiana's largest county.

The Marion County Public Defender Agency's board of directors conducted second interviews March 4 with two applicants who want to succeed Chief Public Defender David E. Cook when he leaves the agency. A third had withdrawn his name prior to those interviews, according to board chairman Jimmie McMillian.

He declined to release any names and would only say the second interviews "went well." The board had interviewed 10 original applicants for the position Feb. 26.

Now, the board plans to meet for an executive session and subsequent public vote to decide on the appointment. Following Tuesday's interviews, the board planned to meet for a vote on March 6. But that plan was scrapped after the board's legal counsel informed members that Indiana's public access law requires 48 hours notice, McMillian said. A date hadn't been determined by Indiana Lawyer Daily deadline.

Once a decision is made, the board will make a recommendation to the City-County Council, which has the final say with a confirmation vote.

McMillian didn't know when that might happen but said it's urgent they consider this appointment as quickly as possible. It could take two meetings to complete the process, he said. The council met Monday, and its next scheduled meeting is March 24, according to an online meeting calendar.

Cook notified the board in early December 2007 of his plans to step down from the agency, where he's been for 12 years. He planned to stay until mid-February, but postponed his departure for a month to give the board more time to find a successor. Cook told Indiana Lawyer today that he has not been asked to stay longer, and that he couldn't stay past April 1. He will start work at Indianapolis immigration firm Gresk & Singleton.
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. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

  2. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  3. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  4. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  5. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

ADVERTISEMENT