ILNews

Interviews for next justice under way today

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One by one, attorneys are appearing before the seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission to explain why they should be the next Indiana Supreme Court justice.

Today is the first round of interviews for 19 of those interested in replacing Justice Theodore Boehm on the Supreme Court. Justice Boehm will retire in September. The remaining 15 people will be interviewed Wednesday.

Some applicants described being a justice as a calling, while others said they spent a lifetime preparing for this. Others described it more as the next logical step in their legal careers.

“It would be the honor of my life to be considered for this position,” said Morgan Superior Judge Jane Spencer Craney, the sixth person interviewed today.

Like her fellow applicants, Judge Craney delved into her experience as a trial judge and prosecutor, but also discussed her interest in being a community leader as the current justices are.

Indianapolis criminal defense attorney Monica Foster said being a justice would be “the coolest job you could have.” She found the 40 arguments she’s made before the high court to be the most exhilarating time of her career. She talked about her role representing the Mexican government and how she enjoys generally “testing the boundaries of the Constitution.”

Commission member John Trimble told her at one point that her “passion leaped off the page of her application.”

Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Elaine Brown is the only appellate court applicant. She went before the nominating commission less than three years ago when she applied for the Court of Appeals.

Only five years removed from private practice with both trial and appellate court experience, she described herself as a balanced “no-risk” choice. Judge Brown outlined specific goals if appointed: examining prison populations and sentencing, personal and social responsibility being taught in schools, and family law being less adversarial.

“This is not your father’s or grandfather’s Supreme Court. This is a supreme opportunity,” she said.

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, spoke generally about his legislative experience and said he’d have a lot to learn.

“We as a society are separated from anarchy only by our ballot and jury box,” he said. “I can give back in both of those ways.”

Also interviewing this morning were Indianapolis attorney Ellen Boshkoff, Baker & Daniels; Fishers attorney Sean M. Clapp of Clapp Ferrucci; Hamilton Superior Judge Steven R. Nation; Zionsville attorney Yasmin L. Stump; and Indianapolis attorney Judy L. Woods.

Interviewing this afternoon are Clark Superior Judge Vicki L. Carmichael; Bloomington attorney Kiply Drew, associate general counsel at Indiana University; Allen Superior Judge Francis C. Gull; Lawrence County deputy prosecutor Christine Talley Haseman; Fountain Circuit Judge Susan Orr Henderson; Fort Wayne attorney Christine Marcuccilli, Rothberg Logan & Warsco; Pendleton attorney Bryce D. Owens; Taft Stettinius & Hollister attorney Geoffrey G. Slaughter; Miami Circuit Judge Robert A. Spahr; and Logansport attorney Donald J. Tribbett.

After the interviews are complete, the commission should decide on the semi-finalists and announce the names Wednesday or Thursday. The semi-finalists will be interviewed July 30, with the governor selecting the next justice from those three.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT