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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?