Interviews over, now wait begins

July 30, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From IL reporter Mike Hoskins:

JUDGE ROBYN MOBERLY: Though she’s proud of handling some of the most complex and varied litigation throughout the state, Judge Moberly said she’s most proud of the energy and initiative she’s put into the state’s Family Court Project, which she’s been a part of since it started almost a decade ago. “One reason I mention that, not only because it’s a passion of mine, is that I want to illustrate the possibilities of what support from the Supreme Court can do for local communities.”

The burgeoning number of pro se litigants is one of the biggest concerns she sees the judiciary facing, and one idea would be for the justices to implement a public law librarian program modeled after how the court recruits teachers to educate students about the Third Branch. Judge Moberly also explained the importance of managing the inevitable statewide court system changes, and how statewide funding is a significant point to consider. She said regional funding might be a step in that direction, and something that everyone can more easily agree on.

Judge Moberly discussed her multiple Supreme Court assignments on disciplinary cases, media matters, and the child support guideline revisions. She also reflected on her views on precedent when there are conflicting Court of Appeal panel rulings, that the doctrinal basis of each case and issue must be analyzed, she said.

JUDGE STEVEN NATION: Judge Nation was the only of the nine semi-finalists that commission members almost didn’t have enough time to ask any questions of, as he spent almost his entire 30-minute interview addressing the submitted two-part question. As far as his biggest accomplishment, he told members about how he wants to be remembered for treating everyone in his court with respect.

The judge discussed how the courts could better reach out to at-risk attorneys on mentoring and tutoring, and he also suggested changes in how judges are designated to do complex litigation. Senior judges could be used to handle the more regular judicial tasks while the active judge handles the more complicated matter. He also suggested expanding the use of interlocutory appeals, as well as getting attorneys more involved in the overall process in different ways.

KIPLEY DREW: She delved into her background that touches on a wide variety of issues, from evicting college residents, to a multi-million software contract, to how daycare operators might have to be aware of a decree or protective order when someone comes to pick up a child. Drew praised the court reform efforts on judicial education and said she’d like to see more outreach opportunities to enhance the public perception of the state judiciary. She talked about justices having to maintain an extra level of discretion to avoid the perception of impropriety, and that while politics shouldn’t be a consideration a justice must be aware of potential ripple effects from any decision.

One commission member asked Drew about her ability to not be influenced by her husband's job clerking for Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker. She said it wouldn't be an issue.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
  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