ILNews

Commission sends finalists letter to governor

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A 60-day clock has started for Gov. Mitch Daniels to choose the next Indiana Supreme Court justice, after three names were officially sent to him Thursday afternoon.

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission a week ago selected two judges and one appellate attorney – Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, and Bingham McHale attorney Karl Mulvaney – from nine semi-finalists vying for a vacancy on the state’s highest court. The seat opens once Justice Theodore Boehm retires Sept. 30.

After a full day of interviews July 30, the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Randall Shepard made its selection based on those 30-minute interviews and the previous ones earlier in July, when all 34 initial applicants were interviewed.

By law, the commission must send an evaluation report to the governor for official consideration. Now that that’s happened, Daniels has 60 days to name the next justice. This will be the Republican governor’s first appointment to the high court and the first new justice since 1999. If he doesn’t meet that deadline, the chief justice then would choose from the same three finalists.

The four-page letter says the commission members considered each applicant’s legal education, writings, reputation in the practice, commitment to the profession and to public service, financial interests, and other pertinent information members considered important. They also interviewed references and reviewed recommendation letters, as well as initiating independent inquiries about the candidates, the letter says.

Written by Chief Justice Shepard, the letter includes a brief summary of each finalist and indicates why the commission chose that particular person.

• Judge David has “proven himself utterly indefatigable in the service and leadership of his fellow citizens. ‘We’ve got a good thing here,’ he said in speaking about Indiana’s legal system. The Commission regards him as a leading part of the reason that this is so.”

• “Asked where we need to do better, Judge Moberly offered a new idea for helping citizens who don’t have a lawyer and also spoke convincingly about the need to manage change in the court system. She has proven her own bona fides on these counts. As a prominent practitioner wrote to us: ‘Judge Moberly would bring an exceptional intellect, a wonderful understanding of the purpose and significance of the law, and great personal skills and character to our highest Court.’”

• "Other attorneys seek out Karl Mulvaney for advice on ethics, and they recruit him to join in representing their clients when something important and challenging is at hand. He is one of those select few about whom people use the term ‘a lawyer’s lawyer.’”

The governor’s general counsel, David Pippen, told Indiana Lawyer following the second interviews last week that interviews with Daniels would be scheduled quickly and that he didn’t expect the governor to come close to running out the 60-day clock.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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