ILNews

Praising new judicial selections

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Hoosier legal community is publicly praising the newest nominees for the state's federal bench as good choices, particularly for those interested in seeing a more diverse judiciary.

The White House announced Jan. 20 that Jon E. DeGuilio , U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt would be nominated for three openings in the state's two U.S. District Courts.

This came two days after Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, made the announcement about the nominations at the federal courthouse in Indianapolis on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. In the Northern District, the nominee would fill the void left by Judge Allen Sharp, who died in July after serving in senior status for about two years. The Southern District seats are open after Judge Larry McKinney took senior status in July and Judge David F. Hamilton was elevated in November to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

While the triple-announcement comes as a first in the number of Hoosier judicial nominations made at the same time, Judge Pratt represents a historic milestone in that she'd be the first African-American to hold a seat on the federal bench in Indiana. Also, if Judges Pratt and Magnus-Stinson are approved, this would double from two to four the number of women on Indiana's federal bench.

The nominations come just as a new University of Albany study shows that female representation among the federal judiciary is lacking nationally - women make up 22 percent of all federal judgeships, with most states at the 20 percent mark and only Connecticut and New Jersey hitting the 33 percent mark. Currently, U.S. District Court Judges Sarah Evans Barker and Theresa Springmann put Indiana at the 20 percent mark, but if the new female nominees are confirmed, four of the 10 federal judges would be women.

Aside from the historic nature of the female nominees, Bayh described all three as being "recognized leaders in the Indiana legal community, demonstrating experience, insight, and non-ideological temperament that Hoosiers should expect from their judges. Indiana's Republican Sen. Dick Lugar praised his colleague's deliberative process in choosing these three, whom he also describes as legal community leaders.

DeGuilio currently serves as general counsel and vice president for Peoples Bank in northwest Indiana, after his six years in the 1990s as chief federal prosecutor for the Northern District of Indiana, and a stint as Lake County prosecutor and as a public defender there. He's also worked as a partner at the South Bend office of Barnes & Thornburg.

Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson started at the Marion Superior Court in the mid-90s and through the years presided over every type of felony case before moving to the federal bench in January 2007 to replace the retiring Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Prior to the state bench, she served as counsel and deputy chief of staff to then-Gov. Bayh; she also worked in the civil litigation practice at LewisWagner for seven years before that.

Judge Pratt is on the Marion Superior bench, currently presiding over civil and probate cases after many years of handling major felony cases. She also has served on the Marion Superior Court's executive committee. She was a family law and probate attorney and a deputy public defender prior to taking the bench.

The first step for each of the nominees is the Senate Judiciary, which must approve a nomination before sending it to the full Senate for consideration. No timeline exists on the confirmation process, but the past four Indiana judicial nominees have taken anywhere from four to eight months. Nationally, other judicial nominations have been delayed for years when opposition arose.

In the legal community, attorneys asked about their thoughts on the nominations expressed satisfaction about each of the nominees whom they've practiced with or appeared before either in state or federal court.

Attorney Larry Evans at Valparaiso law firm Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, a frequent practitioner in federal court, said he's known DeGuilio through bar association and other connections through the years. Even though he hasn't had experience on the bench, Evans said he thinks his colleague is well qualified and has the ideal temperament, judicial demeanor, and overall intellect for the bench.

"That's not necessarily a good thing," he said about only having nominees who've presided on the bench. "That's the European model, where you're trained to become a judge right out of law school. But that's not how our system operates."

Other attorneys in the Northern District, such as Bill Padula in Munster and T. Edward Page in Merrillville, said that DeGuilio would make a fine addition to the federal bench because of his professionalism, temperament, and sharp legal mind. For DeGuilio, federal dockets show his name appearing in 40 criminal, civil, and bankruptcy cases through the years, mostly in the mid-90s.

In the Southern District, Indianapolis criminal defense attorney D. Alan Ladd spoke highly of the two nominees there, echoing the comments made by other attorneys. He's appeared before both and has found them to be fair and evenhanded.

Particularly, he praised how Judge Pratt moved from the criminal to probate side following the death of longtime Superior Judge Charles Deiter in late 2008.

"That was not an easy transition for anyone because it's a total change of gears, but she's very bright and thoughtful and did it so well for everyone involved," he said. "They both have great temperament and I'm pleased to see them both nominated."

Indianapolis attorney John Kautzman at Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook also said he has experience appearing before both Southern District nominees.

"I always favor judges who have trial court experience," he said. "That's a valuable resource to draw upon, and I think it makes them better federal judges."

He's found both to have an unusual and uncanny ability to cut through miscellaneous and complex issues and get right to the heart of a matter, and make practical decisions for all parties.

"That's a strong and important trait for any judge," he said.

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. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT