ILNews

Attorney General promotes 2 of its own internally

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Attorney General’s Office has promoted one of its longtime lawyers to a second-in-command spot that means guiding 144 state government attorneys and working more closely with local prosecutors, police officers, and those in the county criminal justice systems.

Gary D. Secrest moves up from his position of deputy attorney general and chief counsel for the appellate division to become the new chief deputy for the state agency. The second-in-command post has been vacant since Zoeller took over as Attorney General in January 2009.

An Indianapolis native and Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis graduate, the 51-year-old Secrest was sworn in on Thursday afternoon at the Statehouse. Secrest first joined the AG’s Office in 1984 as a law clerk and served as a deputy attorney general in the appellate division from 1985 to 1993. He then moved on to other government roles – chief deputy state treasurer, fund administrator for the Public Deposit Fund, and assistant corporate counsel for the litigation division of the Indianapolis city legal department. Returning to the AG’s Office in 2001 during Steve Carter’s administration, Secrest took over as chief counsel of the appeals division where he supervised attorneys in the state and federal appellate courts.

Through the years, he’s overseen the first DNA criminal appeal in Indiana, briefed the state’s case in the Mike Tyson conviction appeal, and later handled the appeal of the 2003 mayoral election in East Chicago that led to the Indiana Supreme Court ordering a new election.

Aside from the chief deputy duties, Secrest will also remain the ethics officer for the AG’s Office.

Deputy Attorney General Steve Creason, who has led the agency’s habeas corpus and capital litigation section and been with the office since 1999, will take over for Secrest in the appellate division.
 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT