ILNews

New IPAC leader named

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Longtime prosecutor David N. Powell from Greene County is the newest leader of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council.

The IPAC governing board announced the selection late Wednesday, culminating a search process that’s been ongoing for about three months since longtime executive director Stephen J. Johnson announced he was stepping down effective Aug. 1.

Powell was one of about 20 people who’d applied for the post and since early July a four-person search committee – made up of Elkhart County Prosecutor Curtis Hill, Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson, Dearborn-Ohio County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard, and Grant County Prosecutor Jim Luttrull Jr. – has been reviewing applicants.

An Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis graduate admitted to practice in 1981, Powell has three decades of experience in matters ranging from civil law, prosecuting attorney issues on the criminal side, and a long career as a military lawyer.

He’ll lead the state agency and represent Indiana’s 91 prosecutors before the Legislature, as well as act as a liaison to the governor’s office, law enforcement agencies, and various boards and organizations. He begins immediately, but will ease into the new position as he winds up his legal work that includes serving as special prosecutor in a number of criminal cases statewide.

He’s served as a part-time senior prosecutor in 16 counties throughout Central Indiana since 2007, when he chose to not seek a sixth term as Greene County prosecutor. Powell served as an elected prosecutor since 1987, working a decade part-time and a decade full-time. That allowed him to also practice part-time as a civil attorney in Worthington, handling business, real estate, municipal, school, and personal injury issues.

During his time as prosecutor, Powell served two years on the Indiana General Assembly’s Probation Service Study Commission and he’d also served on the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Task Force.

A retired colonel for the U.S. Air Force, Powell has been a state judge advocate for air since 1998, which put him in the role of a senior legal advisor for military affairs for Indiana. He’d served as a judge advocate since the early-1980s, as supervising attorney and legal advisor handling more than 40 felony trials through the years.

Outside of his legal career, Powell has also spent his time operating a 700-acre family farm and beef herd in south-central Indiana.

A joint statement by IPAC board chairman Todd Meyer, Boone County prosecutor, and Luttrull from Grant County who serves as president of the Association of Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys, said the two organizations have confidence that Powell will be able to successfully pick up the role that Johnson had held before retiring and becoming a consultant.

Powell will also serve as executive secretary for the association, which is a separate entity and is able to operate in lobbying areas that IPAC by law cannot, since the latter is a state-funded agency. The second-in-command at IPAC, Suzanne O’Malley – who has been serving as interim director since Johnson’s retiremen – will continue handling the daily operations during Powell’s transition period.

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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT