ILNews

Governor names Boone Circuit judge to Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mitch Daniels announced this morning his pick for the state’s highest appellate court, choosing Boone Circuit Judge Steven H. David to replace retiring Justice Theodore R. Boehm once he steps down Sept. 30. The Republican governor chose the longtime trial judge over Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly and Bingham McHale attorney Karl Mulvaney, who were the finalists forwarded on Aug. 5 from the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission.

While the governor’s choice shifts the court’s balance as far as prior judicial experience versus private practice background, this means the Supreme Court will remain an all-male institution. Only the Indiana and Idaho high courts do not currently have a woman justice.



The governor interviewed the three finalists during the first week of September and said he made his decision Tuesday. In making his selection, the governor said Judge David stood out for his distinguished 15 years on the trial bench, his past experience as corporate counsel, and his longtime military legal career.

“Lastly, I heard from Steve David the clearest expression of commitment to proper restraint in jurisprudence, and deep respect for the boundaries of judicial decision-making,” Daniels said at a morning news conference. “He will be a judge who interprets, rather than invents our laws.”

Judge David was one of the initial 34 applicants for the spot, 19 of which were women. Four of the nine semi-finalists brought back for second interviews were women.

The governor said he would have “liked nothing more” than to name a woman to the court, but that his decision was based on the merits. He might have used gender diversity as a “tie-breaker,” but this wasn’t a tie, he said.

“My task was to find the best person on the merits, and I’m sure I did,” Daniels said. “Now the state is going to benefit from that for years to come.”

A 1982 graduate of Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, Judge David began on the Boone Circuit bench in 1995. He was in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps until the mid-1980s, when he began practicing in Columbus at law firm Cline King King & David. After that, he served as corporate counsel for Mayflower Transit in Carmel. Since taking the trial bench, he’s presided over all types of civil, criminal, and juvenile matters and also served as special judge by Supreme Court appointment and hearing officer or special master in attorney and judicial misconduct cases. Click here to view Judge David's application.

He’s remained in the Army Reserves and worked on reforming the treatment of detainees in Iraq in 2003, as well as serving as chief defense counsel for Guantanamo Bay detainees at one time. He retired from his military service on Sept. 1.

Standing with his wife Catheryne Pully – who is the Indiana State Bar Association’s local and specialty bar liaison - in the governor’s office this morning, Judge David said this is a continuation of a lifetime priority of public service. He hopes to add to the already-strong sense of professionalism and civility displayed by the court.

“This is an opportunity to serve in a different capacity,” he said. “Everything in my life is about public service and this is not something that I planned on doing, but something that just came along. The lesson learned is it’s OK to dream. Hard work can pay off.”

With this appointment, the governor will need to fill the Boone Circuit vacancy and name someone for the remainder of that term expiring in 2012. No timeline has yet been outlined for that process.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT