ILNews

Hogsett resigns as U.S. Attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett announced Monday he is resigning from office effective July 31 after leading the federal prosecutor’s office for the Southern District of Indiana since October 2010.

“It has been an honor to serve in this office for the last four years because I have had the privilege to do so alongside a talented group of Assistant United States Attorneys. I owe them and our tireless support staff a debt of gratitude for the dedication and resilience that has been displayed every day of my tenure,” Hogsett said in a letter to Attorney General Holder.

The letter provided no reason for Hogsett’s decision.

Hogsett, a Democrat who was elected secretary of state in the administration of former Gov. Evan Bayh, has persistently been rumored as a potential candidate for mayor of Indianapolis. But as recently as two months ago, Hogsett said he had no plans to run.

“The press release stands on his own and Joe will have no further comment today,” spokesman Tim Horty said. “In the days to come, we will have some transition details to share.”

Horty said he didn’t know what Hogsett’s plans were after July 31.

In his letter of resignation, Hogsett highlighted the office’s accomplishments.

“We have set new records for the number of defendants charged and the total number of criminal convictions. The office has led the nation in average length of sentences imposed on criminal defendants. Fiscally, annual office spending has fallen every year I have served, and is currently at a level not seen since the Bush Administration,” the letter says.

“But numbers alone are not sufficient to describe the office’s accomplishments. Rather, the full story is told through the thousands of victims who found some sense of justice over the last four years – children who had faced horrific exploitation, grandmothers who had watched their retirement funds disappear, neighborhoods that used to live in fear of violent gangs that operated with no regard for the rule of law.”

Hogsett said in a 2012 interview that he sought to raise the profile of his office and bring federal resources to bear to counter gun violence, public corruption and white-collar crime.

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