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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT