ILNews

Public defender finalists named

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Two men vying for Marion County's top public defender spot will face public interviews next week before members of the county agency's governing board decide which one will ultimately be recommended for the position.

The Marion County Public Defender Agency's board of directors declined to release names publicly until today. The board is searching for someone to succeed chief defender David E. Cook, who is leaving the agency for Indianapolis immigration firm Gresk & Singleton.

Indianapolis defense attorneys Robert J. Hill Jr. and Eric K. Koselke are in the final running for the chief defender job.

But as the nine-member board moves into the final stretches of its search for a successor, it's investigating a potential conflict of interest. Because one of the two finalists works in the same firm as one of the voting members, that could mean only eight get to vote next week.

Board member Richard Kammen is a partner at Gilroy Kammen & Hill, the firm where Hill has practiced criminal defense since 2001. Kammen has been involved in the discussion phases so far, and a decision hasn't been made whether he'll participate in the public vote.

"We're still considering whether there's an issue," said board chairman Jimmie McMillian, an associate with Barnes & Thornburg. "We've discussed that but haven't decided how to proceed."

The board's legal counsel Logan Harrison couldn't be reached today, but the Hoosier State Press Association's legal counsel Stephen Key said the situation doesn't seem to rise to a state statute violation. Without knowing specifics, Key said the issue would be whether Kammen and the firm would gain in any way if Hill secured the top defender spot. An appearance of impropriety may be the only concern, but that doesn't rise to a statute violation level, he said.

"There may not be anything legally wrong, but what's the public perception?" Key asked. "If it appears that there's favoritism or a feeling of impropriety, then maybe they'd decide whether that person should step aside so no one could question (the vote) later."

An open meeting is scheduled for 11:45 a.m. March 12 in Room 260 of the City-County Building, 200 E. Washington St. Both Hill and Koselke will go through a third and final interview before the vote, McMillian said. The board interviewed 10 applicants Feb. 26 and trimmed the list to three: Hill, Koselke, and attorney Mark E. Kamish, who practices at Baldwin Adams Knierim & Kamish in Franklin. Kamish withdrew his name for "personal and professional reasons," according to McMillian.

Both finalists have extensive ties to the agency and experience handling a range of criminal cases. Koselke has been practicing since June 1985, working as a deputy state public defender for three years, chief public defender of Marion Municipal Courts for three years, six years working for the county defender's office, and for various private firms. He currently has his own firm devoted mostly to criminal defense, and he also serves as a special assistant to the state public defender.

Admitted to practice in January 1982, Hill has worked as deputy chief public defender from 1994 to 2000 and as a part-time defender since 1983 on juvenile and major felony cases. Hill is a board member for the Indiana Public Defender Council and has served as a past chairman. He also stepped down from the county defender agency's board recently to apply for this slot. Currently, Hill practices at Gilroy Kammen & Hill as well as being a contract public defender for the Indiana Federal Community Defenders.

Following the interviews, the board will send a recommendation for consideration by the City-County Council, which has final confirmation power.

This final action from the agency's board comes more than three months after Cook notified members he'd be leaving the agency he's led for 12 years. He planned to stay until mid-February but delayed his departure for a month to give the board more time to find a successor. It's unclear whether he'll be able to do that again. He has told Indiana Lawyer that he cannot stay past April 1, which means the board will likely have to appoint an interim director to fill the spot until Cook's successor gets the City-County Council's confirmation.

McMillian expects the council to vote in mid-April, but he emphasized this appointment is urgent and needs consideration as quickly as possible. The council met Monday and its next scheduled meeting is March 24, according to an online meeting calendar.
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