ILNews

IBA: Three IndyBar Members among SC Semi-Finalists

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Following the first round of interviews, three Indianapolis Bar Association members remain in the hunt to fill the upcoming vacancy on the Indiana Supreme Court. Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, Marion Superior Court Judge Robyn Moberly, and Bingham McHale partner Karl Mulvaney are among the nine semi-finalists announced by the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission.
 

Fihser Tom Fisher

Thomas Fisher

Indiana Solicitor General

Education: A.B. summa cum laude Wabash College; J.D. magna cum laude Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington

Admission to the Indiana Bar: October 31, 1994

Significant legal matter noted on application: Served as counsel of record in the U.S. Supreme Court and argued successfully that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right of self-representation for a mentally impaired but trial-competent defendant.

Jury Experience: No jury trial experience.
 

Moberly Robyn Moberly

The Hon. Robyn Moberly

Judge, Marion Superior Court

Education: B.A. Indiana University; J.D. cum laude Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis

Admission to the Indiana Bar: May 18, 1978

Significant legal matter noted on application: Presided over a capital case, entering several months after it was filed. Posted chronological case entries on the court website along with copies of pleadings to facilitate media access which was new to the court system at the time.

Jury Experience: As a practicing attorney was involved in approximately jury trials (civil & criminal). Has preside over 16-20 jury trials each year in civil court.
 

Mulvaney Karl Mulvaney

Karl L. Mulvaney

Partner, Bingham McHale LLP

Education: B.S. cum laude The Ohio State University; J.D. cum laude Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis

Admission to the Indiana Bar: October 11, 1977

Significant legal matter noted on application: Involved in a case involving the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals’ application and enforcement of what was then relatively new Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and one of its purposes which was to thwart child stealing.

Jury Experience: No jury trial experience, but numerous bench trials.

On July 30th the Judicial Nominating Commission will interview the nine named semi-finalists. The Commission will consider those nine applicants in an executive session. The Commission will then vote on the final nominees in public. A press release naming the finalists will be posted to courts.in.gov shortly after the public vote.

In May, Justice Theodore R. Boehm announced he would step down from the bench on September 30, 2010. The seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission is searching for Justice Boehmís successor. Chaired by Chief Justice Shepard, the Commission interviews the candidates and will send the names of three candidates to Governor Mitch Daniels. The Governor will select Indiana’s next justice.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT