ILNews

Mark Massa named Indiana Supreme Court justice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mitch Daniels has chosen Indiana Criminal Justice Institute Director Mark S. Massa as the state’s newest Supreme Court justice.

At 2:15 p.m. Friday, Daniels announced that he picked Massa to fill a vacancy created by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard’s retirement from the court. The governor selected Massa over Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Cale J. Bradford and Indiana Judicial Center Executive Director Jane A. Seigel, the other two finalists recommended by the Judicial Nominating Commission.

Massa will join Justices Steven David, Brent Dickson, Robert Rucker and Frank Sullivan on the Supreme Court.

A 1989 graduate of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Massa, 51, has been executive director of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute since May 2011. He served as the governor’s general counsel from 2006 to 2010, and previously served as a federal and state prosecutor.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Shocking!
    I knew Massa would be the one selected as soon as I saw his name as a potential candidate. He was Daniels' counsel until he decided he wanted to be prosecutor, which he also wasn't qualified for. Now, a Sup. Ct. Justice! OMG! He's never been on a bench. Judge Bradford would have been a much better choice. But then, he's not a Daniels crony. Politial favoritism wins out again.
  • Great Choice
    The final list of candidates are all they type of person you hope will step up and be willing to serve. Massa is a great choice. Common sense, integrity, with a great work ethic.
  • Of course
    Massa is Daniels' crony. Was there any doubt..... Another white republican male. Great.

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