ILNews

Indiana's newest jurist

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For Mark Massa, waiting for the decision as to who would be the next Indiana justice was the hardest part.

At first, he had trouble sleeping and jumped every time the phone rang. But eventually, he let go and was ready for anything, including becoming Justice Mark Massa.

Gov. Mitch Daniels announced March 23 he had selected his former general counsel to fill the spot left vacant by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard’s retirement.

The number 23 has taken on a new meaning in Massa’s life thanks to the application and appointment process. One month prior to his appointment, he was named as one of the three finalists on Feb. 23.

“That’s my new favorite number, and not because of Michael Jordan or LeBron James,” Massa said with a laugh. “If I play the lottery, that’s the number I’ll have to go with.”

His appointment became official on April 2 when he took the oath of office, which was administered by Shepard during a short, private ceremony in the justices’ conference room.
 

massa-mark03-15col.jpg Mark Massa, left, is sworn in as a justice by former Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard in a private ceremony. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

When announcing his decision, Daniels described his pick as a superb selection and the finest choice he could have made. He chose Massa over Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford and Indiana Judicial Center Executive Director Jane A. Seigel. Daniels said he was impressed by Massa’s background and experience with all three branches of government as well as various aspects of legal practice. He has the principles and temperament to be a great justice and make his own historical contributions on “America’s best Supreme Court,” the governor said.

A 1989 graduate of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, the 51-year-old Massa has led the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute since May 2011. He served as the governor’s general counsel from 2006 to 2010 before making an unsuccessful run for Marion County prosecutor and temporarily chairing the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission.

Massa served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District from 2002 to 2005, where he oversaw criminal investigations and led a task force to combat mortgage fraud. Before that, he worked as chief counsel and a deputy prosecutor in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office for about seven years. In the early 1990s, he clerked for Shepard, the justice whose seat he will now occupy.

“This is a sobering responsibility, and I can’t put into words how much it means to be appointed by my governor to replace my judge,” he said. “It’s not something any attorney does, looking in the mirror and seeing a potential Supreme Court justice staring back. This is going to take a while to get used to.”

The fact Massa previously served as Daniels’ general counsel may have actually worked against him as a candidate, Daniels said, because he was so familiar with Massa that he overlooked what the legal community thought about him. Daniels said he was moved by the evidence and testimony in support of Massa.

Massa joins the current court with Acting Chief Justice Brent Dickson and Justices Steven David, Robert Rucker and Frank Sullivan, although that lineup is short-lived as Sullivan announced – on the same day as Massa’s swearing-in – that he will be stepping down from the court this summer to take a teaching position at the Indianapolis law school.

On the day of Massa’s appointment, Dickson said the new chief justice selection process will be delayed so that Massa is able to “get settled.” The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission likely won’t proceed before the process begins to replace Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Carr Darden, who is retiring in July.

But one thing is certain from Massa’s point of view: He doesn’t want to be the chief and he plans to pull his name from that consideration.

Massa and Shepard had their first chance to meet for lunch a week after the announcement, and the former chief justice – now serving in part as an Indiana Court of Appeals senior judge – said he couldn’t have been more pleased with the governor’s selection.

“He has the character, mental power and generosity of heart to serve in ways that will make Indiana a place of greater justice,” Shepard said. “I’ve said it before, but I predict plenty of applause for his service and performance in the years to come.”

Massa said the appointment process was a unique experience, specifically because he found himself on the opposite end of the interview table. When he was the governor’s counsel, Massa had been the one questioning finalists and ultimately consulting with Daniels on the choices.

He’d asked finalists to review cases or even do some “homework” in preparing a ruling, but that’s not something he faced this time from general counsel Anita Samuels.

“Honestly, it felt like a lot of other meetings with the governor through the years,” Massa said. “We had a wide-ranging conversation about judicial philosophy and many aspects of being a judge.”

Knowing that he has “enormous shoes to fill,” Massa said he hopes to continue the type of collegiality and professionalism for which Shepard and the rest of this court are so well-respected. He doesn’t plan to immediately pursue a particular focus area like other justices have done, such as court media relations or technology, but said he wants to start off learning as much as possible across the board.

“The pride I am feeling, that I’ve felt since that moment when I found out, is indescribable,” he said. “I have an appreciation for the court and how it’s grown through the years in esteem, and I hope as a newcomer I can maintain those time-honored standards.”•

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT