ILNews

Boone Circuit Judge Steven David to succeed retiring Justice Theodore R. Boehm

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Judge Steven H. David said he would have been content staying in his job as Boone Circuit judge for the rest of his legal career.

But he took a chance, overcoming an initial doubt that he should apply for an Indiana Supreme Court opening and ultimately rising to the top of 34 attorneys and judges to become the state’s 106th justice. He replaces retiring Justice Theodore R. Boehm.
 

David David

Just as he’d once dreamed of being the first in his family to go to college, enroll in law school, and embrace a 25-year military career, the 15-year trial judge has once again achieved his dream that stems from his life goal of giving back through public service.

“I feel like I’ve won the Steve David professional lottery and I don’t have to give the money back,” he said about a week after hearing the news, stepping away from the annual judicial conference in Indianapolis to talk about his experience. “Everything in my life is about public service, and this is not something that I planned on doing but something that just came along. The lesson learned is it’s OK to dream. Hard work can pay off.”



Gov. Mitch Daniels announced his decision Sept. 17, selecting Judge David from a field of finalists that also included Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly and Indianapolis appellate attorney Karl Mulvaney. The governor said Judge David stood out for his distinguished years on the trial bench, his past experience as corporate counsel, and his longtime military legal career.

Following Justice Boehm’s retirement announcement in May, Judge David was one of the initial 34 applicants for the spot. The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission in July chose him as one of nine semi-finalists who’d return for second interviews before it narrowed the field to the final three. Click here to read Judge David's application.


Mitch Daniels Daniels

The governor said that from Judge David, he heard “the clearest expression of commitment to proper restraint in jurisprudence and deep respect for the boundaries of judicial decision-making. He will be a judge who interprets, rather than invents our laws.”

Paving the way to justice

A 1982 graduate of Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, Judge David started on the Boone Circuit bench in 1995. Before taking the bench, he began his legal career as an associate working at Richard Eynon’s law firm in Columbus where he’d been clerking for two years during law school. He handled primarily personal injury and general law during his time there before moving on to practice family law and civil litigation at the Columbus law firm that became Cline King King & David. He returned to practice with Eynon for almost two years before becoming corporate counsel in 1988 for Mayflower Transit in Carmel.

That took him away from Bartholomew County where he’d hoped to one day became a judge. Instead, he settled in Boone County, where he would ultimately serve on the bench.

Elected in 1994 and taking the bench in January 1995, he’s presided over all types of civil, criminal, and juvenile matters. He also served as special judge by Supreme Court appointment, and hearing officer or special master in attorney and judicial misconduct cases. Some of his more noteworthy cases through the years have been his special judging on the Zolo Azania death penalty case in 2005 and the capital case of Mark Lichtenberger in 1999, which involved the execution-style shooting of a state trooper and led to a life without parole plus 20-year sentence.

Most recently Judge David presided over the ongoing disciplinary case against Delaware County Prosecutor Mark McKinney – a matter that he’ll likely have to recuse himself on once it reaches the Supreme Court for a decision about potential sanctions. As juvenile judge in the county, Judge David also has been a vocal advocate for families and on juvenile law, and he’s proud that through the years he’s never been overturned on appeal in a parental-rights termination matter.

He’s testified through the years about those issues, as well as speaking about other general legal matters and developing the Boone County Continuing Legal Education program.

But on top of that distinguished career in private practice, the corporate world, and as a trial judge, what made Judge David an even more fascinating choice was his distinguished military and related legal career. The son of a retired U.S. Air Force man, Judge David spent his early childhood on bases in the Azores near Portugal and in Oklahoma and Maryland before his dad retired and the family settled in Bartholomew County. That experience with military service led him to join the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps in 1982 soon after his law school graduation.

He remained in the Army Reserves and moved up the ranks to get special top secret clearance, receiving multiple military awards, and serving in various roles in active duty through the years. Judge David has helped reform the treatment of detainees in Iraq and served as chief defense counsel for Guantanamo Bay detainees, as well as served as military judge and legal advocate.

After a long and distinguished military career, Judge David retired from his service Sept. 1, which paved the way for his new role on the state Supreme Court.

“Everything I’ve done has helped prepare me for the next chapter of my life,” the judge said. “I look forward to working with the absolute best Supreme Court in the United States, the absolute best Court of Appeals, and all the trial judges and every lawyer. Most importantly, I look forward to serving the citizens of the state of Indiana.”

In the legal community, court watchers say that Judge David’s varied experience make him someone who differs from the current lineup and will add a new dimension to the state’s highest court. His appointment also shifts the court’s balance in favor of those with past judicial experience, as he, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, and Justice Robert Rucker all hail from the trial or appellate bench while Justices Brent Dickson and Frank Sullivan came from the practicing lawyer ranks.

Reaction

Sitting in the courtroom where he’ll soon preside, Judge David said he hopes he always remains in awe about being a part of such a professional, civilized, and historic part of the legal system. He said this appointment isn’t about him and he’s trying to remain modest, though he can’t help smiling and chuckling when putting his head on the pillow at night.

Though he hasn’t yet had the chance, Judge David said he plans to spend time researching the history of Indiana Supreme Court justices so that he knows more about those whose portraits hang on the walls of the ornate courtroom in the Statehouse. He still can’t believe that his photo will be placed up there, and he can only hope to follow the leadership that Justice Boehm has displayed.

“I hope some aspect of my past is of benefit to the process,” Judge David said. “This isn’t about me, it’s about the process, about embracing the rule of law.”

Judge David said he hopes to add to the already-strong sense of professionalism and civility displayed by the court but doesn’t know how his presence might shift the dynamic.

“I am going to be the same person I was, and that won’t change,” he said, adding that he hopes the other four justices are ready for that. “It hasn’t set in, and I hope it never does. The moment you are not in awe about this courtroom or this process is the day you should quit.”

Those who know Judge David say he’ll offer a perspective on juveniles and family law that the Supreme Court doesn’t currently have.

Boone County Bar Association president Michael Schultz, an attorney at Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson in Lebanon, said the governor couldn’t have made a better a choice.

“While (we) fully appreciate the loss that will be felt with Judge David leaving the bench here, we also recognize that his experience and his considerable talents will be best utilized by serving not just the citizens of Boone County, but all citizens of our state.”

Judge David is finalizing his work in Boone County before making the transition, which is expected in mid-October. The court’s public information officer Kathryn Dolan said that means the court will see an 18-day gap where there are only four justices because Justice Boehm steps down Sept. 30, the day of his retirement ceremony. An investiture ceremony for Judge David is planned for Oct. 18 and that ceremony will be webcast live online; previous investitures are also archived online. The governor is responsible for selecting someone to succeed Judge David on the trial bench and complete the term that runs through 2012.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT