Justice interviews begin

July 30, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From IL reporter Michael Hoskins:

Commission members began arriving about 8 a.m.

Once the interviews began, the chief justice welcomed and congratulated each person and then led off with the two-part question that had been sent to each semi-finalist earlier in the week.

JUDGE STEVEN DAVID: He began by asking “Is the rumor true? That I can reserve five minutes for rebuttal at the end?” Garnering a laugh by commission members, the chief justice said, “No, it’s not.” Judge David talked about being first in his family to go to law school

Judge David said the biggest challenge is how the state judiciary stays efficient and relevant without much money, and he said more centralized operation and coordination between the 92 counties must be explored. The court must be as open and transparent as possible in order to make sure litigants have adequate access to justice. The judge noted he wasn’t afraid of cameras in the court.

Commission member Keck asked how a judge should factor political, social, and economic ramifications into their decision-making. The judge responded that he’d separate them all, but that it’s not unusual to factor economic and social impacts into some decisions. But not political impacts, he said.

“This may have lost me the nomination,” he said, “but as a judge, I don’t blog. I don’t Facebook. I don’t want to read what people are saying, though I respect what they’re saying and will defend that right to the death. I make decisions that people have appealed and haven’t been happy about. But they respect the process and my decision enough. I’m fascinated by politics, but that doesn’t have any place in being a judge.”

TOM FISHER: Fisher said his greatest professional accomplishment was being able to argue three cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, two of which he’s won. The most significant was the voter ID decision.

Advocating against and defending lower court decisions is a significant accomplishment in itself, but being successful at the SCOTUS “adds another dimension to my practice.”

As far as changes to the judiciary, Fisher said e-filing was one example that he thought of, a concept that he’d like to see mirror PACER in some ways. Already, JTAC is implementing a statewide case management system and the state has recently started seeking feedback for an appellate system with e-filing being a major aspect. Another area might be for the state judiciary to examine procedural rules about how they mesh with the federal system. There might be an opportunity for Indiana to be proactive on evidentiary rules, and even lead the nation on this. The final area he discussed was addressing how we handle transfer petitions, particularly reviewing the briefing process so that more might be allowed in some cases. Under current system, the Court of Appeals is best place for an amicus party to get involved rather than file a brief on the transfer request.
 
JUDGE CYNTHIA EMKES: Judge Emkes said her biggest accomplishment is in assisting the judiciary in expanding its knowledge of death penalty cases. “It’s been so satisfying to be a part of that, to attend and teach at conferences where judges seem so much more comfortable after those conferences because of what they’ve learned.”

Regarding the two areas of change the commission members asked candidates to consider, Judge Emkes said she’d to see the high court work to expand problem-solving courts. Right now, re-entry and drug and community courts are great and beneficial, but there aren’t many in the civil arena, she said. She researched about 20 other states that have done this with business courts. Indiana’s courts are backlogged, and it can take a very long time to get cases heard in court and that hurts businesses. Some states have used law schools to help do this, she noted.

Secondly, she’d like to see the Supreme Court give guidance to the lower courts on how to better combat recidivism. Trial judges really haven’t embraced that, she said, and given focus to sentencing and recidivism that they could. Trial court judges need guidance from the Supreme Court, and the judiciary needs to embrace these best practices as soon as possible.

Judge Emkes was asked about the rate of reversals she’s seen from higher appellate courts on her cases – roughly a third. She responded that sentencing disparities are a tough issue to address. The state statutes are good and comparable to other states, but each community is different and judges face many factors in deciding what is an appropriate sentence. She said the toughest ethical issue she faces as a judge is campaign contributions in running for the bench, because any candidate and judge must be careful about what money they can take from attorneys and potential litigants who might appear before them in court.

NEXT UP: Boshkoff, Mulvaney and Steele…

 

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT