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.


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.