ILNews

Committee questions Indiana judicial nominees

Michael W. Hoskins
February 11, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's three judicial nominees appeared before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today to answer senators' questions nearly a month after they were tapped to fill openings in the state's federal courts.

Discussions regarding Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen have been delayed again. After two delays in the past 10 days, nominees Jon DeGuilio for the Northern District of Indiana, and Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson for the Southern District of Indiana joined three other nominees from different states in appearing before the committee in Washington, D.C.

This is the first step in the confirmation process, and this hearing preceded an Senate Judiciary executive business meeting where senators didn't have quorum to discuss the long-delayed nomination of Dawn Johnsen, who's been chosen to lead the Office of Legal Counsel. The next chance for that to happen will be following the weeklong President's Day break starting Monday. That time will also allow for senators to submit additional questions on the pending judicial nominations after today's discussion.

Following introductory remarks from Indiana's Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh and a brief introductory statement from each nominee, the Hoosier nominees only faced questions from interim committee chair Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who was the only member of the minority party to attend the hearing. Sessions emphasized that this nomination hearing is the only real opportunity the American people have to see the nominees and ask questions of them. So, he directed a handful of questions at each person while also referring to the nominees' public questionnaires that have been submitted and can be viewed at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Web site.

Receiving the fewest and least-specific questions was DeGuilio, who is legal counsel for Peoples Bank and has served as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana and Lake County prosecutor. Generally, DeGuilio joined the other nominees in saying he was familiar with and would respect the federal criminal sentencing guidelines, as well as established precedent.

But the female jurists received specific questions from Sessions, who questioned their views and handling of criminal sentencing issues. Specifically, he referred to a time on the state court bench when Magistrate Magnus-Stinson asked to not be assigned to cases involving the death penalty. Magistrate Magnus-Stinson said she'd consulted the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission, which advised her then to not make any public statements about the issue and that advice still applies.

Sessions pressed the topic, saying it's an important issue about judicial activism and the committee should hear her views. "I am fully cognizant that the death penalty is the law of land, and I'm fully under oath to uphold it," she said in response. "I have never expressed such a view on the death penalty, and will continue to refrain from expressing views as it's an issue that may appear before me." Sessions questioned Judge Pratt about a case where she allowed a burglary convict to be transferred from state prison to a low-security facility over the prosecutor's objections, as allowed by state statute. The convict escaped and was convicted for his involvement in a murder.  

"That was a huge learning experience for me as a state court judge, and an example of the difficult decisions we have to make as judges," she said. "I do regret that, though you couldn't predict that would happen. This was a heartbreaking, horrible experience and it goes to show the huge impact our decisions have on the community." No timeline has been set for when the committee will vote on the judicial nominations.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT