Governor: Mark Massa 'superb choice' for Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard's final day as a member of the Indiana Supreme Court, Gov. Mitch Daniels named Mark S. Massa, a former state and federal prosecutor, as the state’s newest justice.

Daniels chose Massa, director of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, on March 23 over Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford and Indiana Judicial Center Executive Director Jane A. Seigel. His selection came exactly one month after the three finalists had been chosen for his consideration.

Describing his pick as a superb selection and the finest choice he could have made, Daniels said he was impressed by Massa’s background and experience with all three branches of government as well as multiple aspects of legal practice. He has the merit, principle and temperament to be a great justice and make his own historical contributions on “America’s best Supreme Court,” the governor said.

A 1989 graduate of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Massa, who turned 51 on March 6, has led the Criminal Justice Institute since May 2011 and served as the governor’s general counsel from 2006 to 2010 before making an unsuccessful run for Marion County prosecutor and temporarily chairing the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission.

Massa served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District from 2002 to 2005, where he oversaw criminal investigations and led a task force to combat mortgage fraud. Before that, he worked as chief counsel and a deputy prosecutor in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office for about seven years.

Early in his career, Massa trained under Shepard as his law clerk.

“This is a sobering responsibility, and I can’t put into words how much it means to be appointed by my governor to replace my judge,” Massa said. “It’s not something any attorney does, looking in the mirror and seeing a potential Supreme Court justice staring back. This is going to take a while to get used to.”

In a statement, Shepard said that Massa has the character, mental power and generosity of heart to serve in ways that will make Indiana a place of greater justice.

The governor said that the fact Massa previously served as his general counsel may have actually worked against him as a candidate, because he was so familiar with Massa that he overlooked what the legal community thought about him. Daniels said he was moved by the evidence and testimony in support of Massa.

No start date has been scheduled, Massa said, but he will begin winding down his work at the criminal justice institute while immediately transitioning to the court to begin getting familiar with the new job.

Massa joins Justices Steven David, Brent Dickson, Robert Rucker and Frank Sullivan on the Supreme Court. Indiana remains one of only three states without a female on the Supreme Court bench; the other two are Idaho and Iowa.

With Massa chosen, the Judicial Nominating Commission will be able to move forward with the process for appointing a new chief justice to a five-year term to succeed Shepard. All five justices will have the opportunity to be considered for that position. Dickson is serving as acting chief justice until that decision is made.

Dickson said Friday that a decision was made to let the new justice “get settled” on the court before moving ahead with chief justice appointment. He said the commission likely won’t make a chief justice appointment before the process begins to replace Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Carr Darden, who is retiring in July.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.