ILNews

Governor names two new trial judges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mitch Daniels has chosen two new judges for the state’s trial bench roster, one of those to succeed the jurist elevated earlier this year to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The announcements came today from the governor’s office, two of the six that Daniels is considering as a result of retirements or vacancies this year.

J. Jeffrey Edens is the newest Boone Circuit judge, taking over for Steven H. David who joined the Indiana Supreme Court in October. Edens has been serving as judge pro temp on that local bench since then, as well as from 2007 to 2009 when then-Judge David was mobilized on active military duty. Prior to taking the bench, Edens was chief deputy prosecutor in Boone County and also served as an associate attorney and partner at Shelby & Edens in Lebanon.

In Shelby County, the governor chose David N. Riggins for Shelby Superior 2. He succeeds Judge Russell J. Sanders who is retiring from the bench this year. Riggins has been a Shelby County deputy prosecutor since 1996, and is also president of the Shelby County Bar Association.

Aside from those vacancies, the governor is still considering who will succeed retiring Howard Superior 2 Judge Stephen Jessup, Wells Circuit Judge David Hanselman who retires Feb. 19, 2011, retiring Terre Haute City Judge John T. Roach, and Merrillville Town Judge George Paras who has been elected to the Lake Circuit bench.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT