Commission interviewing 9 semi-finalists today

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One set of interviews remain before the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission goes into a closed-door meeting to deliberate which three names should be sent to the governor to decide who will be the state’s next Supreme Court justice.

The seven-member commission this morning interviewed six of the nine semi-finalists to succeed Justice Theodore R. Boehm once he retires in September. Almost three dozen applicants had put their name in the hat for the justice spot, and two days of interviews in early July narrowed that list to nine semi-finalists. The commission is tasked with providing three finalists’ names to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who will have 60 days to make a decision.

Interviewed so far today: Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher, Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia Emkes, Indianapolis attorney Ellen Boschkoff with Baker & Daniels, Indianapolis attorney Karl Mulvaney with Bingham McHale, and State Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford. Those being interviewed this afternoon are Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation, and Indiana University associate general counsel Kipley Drew.

Each person began their 30-minute interview with a congratulatory welcome from Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who chairs the commission. He then asked each semi-finalist to address a two-part question sent out by the commission earlier this week:

"What do you consider your finest professional accomplishment or contribution?" and "Name two things that need improving in the Indiana court system that a justice might help solve."

Some of the semi-finalists mentioned technology as a key area the judiciary must focus on, including Boshkoff, Judge David, and Steele.

“As a member of the court, with my experience in the legislature, I can keep the Odyssey program on track,” Steele said, adding that he’d be in favor of seeing the Supreme Court establish a sort of “mini-law school,” or indoctrination program for new lawyers to learn the basic tenets of the law and how to apply those to their practices.

Judge David responded to one commission member’s concern about his military career and said it wouldn’t interfere because he’d finished his service, and overall his military experience and international law knowledge make him unique among the nine semi-finalists in bringing something new to the court.

In talking about his greatest accomplishments, Fisher discussed the three Supreme Court of the United States arguments he’s made through the years. As far as changes, he noted that the court might explore allowing merit briefs similar to what the SCOTUS allows and possibly look at changing evidentiary rules to mesh with what’s already in place in the federal system.

Judge Emkes spoke about her biggest accomplishment as being her familiarity with and education for trial judges on the death penalty, given her history in that area. She also spoke about expanding problem-solving courts to include business areas, and also the need to establish best practices for criminal sentences and alternatives.

In response to the advance question, Boshkoff said that her review of court activity shows her that access to justice and civil litigation costs are the two top areas that the judiciary must address. She praised the court’s action on IOLTA accounts, court interpreters, low-cost ADR, civil legal aid, pro se litigants, and the mortgage foreclosure crisis, but said more needs to be done as far as access is concerned.

Once the interviews end today, the nominating commission goes into an executive session to discuss who the finalists should be. The process could be quick or take hours – members were able to narrow the initial 34 applicants to nine semi-finalists in about two hours.

Reflecting on that decision and how the semi-finalists view it, Judge David provoked laughter from the commission when he talked about how he felt about waiting to know who’d move on to the final round.

“This is like being nine little birds in a nest… You’re flying overhead with a worm, and we’re all waiting with our mouths open wanting that one worm,” he said. “Now I know what a bird feels like.”


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.