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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT