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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT