ILNews

High court opening process wasn't public 25 years ago

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nearly three-dozen attorneys who’ve applied to become the state’s newest justice sets a record for the past 25 years, but it falls short of the number who’d applied for an Indiana Supreme Court post a quarter century ago.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard was part of an applicant pool for the state’s highest court in 1985 to succeed former Justice Donald Hunter who’d hit the mandatory retirement age. At the time, Indiana’s statutory scheme hadn’t yet changed to make the applicant roster and interview process public – everything was confidential until the late '80s and early '90s.

Court public information officer Kathryn Dolan said 36 applied a quarter century ago, which is two more applicants than the 34 who’ve applied for the post being vacated in September once Justice Theodore R. Boehm retires from the court. The chief justice affirmed that number based on what he knew at the time, but added the process was very different then.

“The list was never public, so you never really knew all who’d applied,” the chief justice said today. “But because of a massive amount of reporter time, the Star uncovered the names of about two-thirds of the applicants by calling up and asking them. I certainly knew several of them, but it was all closed.”

Instead of the current process put into place in 1991 when a new fifth district was added to the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Judicial Nominating Commission at the time held all of the interviews during three days and announced the finalists at the end – rather than narrowing the list down to semi-finalists and bringing those individuals back for second interviews before choosing finalists to send to the governor for consideration.

Thinking back on his interview, Chief Justice Shepard said he didn’t recall specifically how long his interview lasted but he knew that he was in the room longer than his allotted time. He remembers then-Chief Justice Richard Givan asking him questions about how he managed his trial court work and something about philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke, but he doesn’t recall how he answered.

“I know I spent a fair amount of time getting ready, because the application then was as it is now – a fairly substantial process in itself,” Chief Justice Shepard said. “I remember spending a lot of time thinking about what I might be asked and what I might say.”

After what he now describes as a likely grueling process for the commission members at the time, the chief justice emerged as one of three finalists for the opening – attorneys Patrick Woods Harrison in Columbus and Raymond Thomas Green, now in Fort Wayne, were the other two finalists.

Green couldn’t be reached at his office today, but Harrison said he had no regrets about how the process turned out. After the nominating commission interview, he met twice with then-Gov. Robert Orr and answered questions about experience and general philosophies on issues such as utilities. Within a few weeks, the announcement came about the final choice.

“Honestly, I wrote the governor after Justice Shepard was appointed and said, ‘I hate to admit this, but you made the right choice,’” Harrison said. “I can say so many great things about Randy and just can’t think of anything bad, and that’s unusual for someone who’s been on the court for so long.”

Chief Justice Shepard says that he was the oldest of the three on that list, and he later learned that the commission members considering applicants had expressed “a fair amount of sentiment” to find someone young for the court.

Now serving as chief justice and chair of the Judicial Nominating Commission, he finds himself on the flip side of that interview process. Interviews begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday and run through the entire day, and start again at the same time Wednesday. The commission will select semi-finalists following those interviews, and will bring those individuals back for a second round of questions on July 30. Members are expected to decide that day on three finalists, whose names will be sent to Gov. Mitch Daniels for final consideration.

“I still believe this two-stage process has been a valuable change,” Chief Justice Shepard said. “For one, it gives commission members a second look at candidates before making a final choice. It also gives us a chance to call references and the seven of us have been able to divide up the task of calling those references. It’s just a better decision-making process.”

The chief justice laughs about the possibility of a different result, had the process been any different or been spread out in stages as it is now.

“I have no basis to know, but there was a list of substantially qualified people who applied,” he said. “I am lucky to have made it.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT