ILNews

Rookie year on the Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the public arena, Justice Steven David’s first year on the bench may be marked by a decision he penned about resisting police entry into a person’s home.

But to many Indiana trial judges, appellate attorneys and legal observers, the newest Indiana Supreme Court justice represents a fresh, practical voice on the state’s highest court and someone who has his hands in multiple facets of the state legal community.

steven david Justice Steven David marked his first year on the Indiana Supreme Court in October, following his appointment by Gov. Mitch Daniels. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The former Boone Circuit judge joined the court Oct. 18, 2010, as Indiana’s 106th justice, following Justice Theodore Boehm’s retirement. Although David is modest when reflecting on his impact, some say the new justice has made a difference in the court’s tone. Chief Justice Randall Shepard points to David’s debut year as one that marks a moment in time the court hasn’t experienced in 26 years.

“If there’s anyone who hit the ground running, it’s been Steve David,” the chief justice said. “Comparatively, I think Steve has been very successful in a moment in the court’s history that makes this a first year very different than it would have been for anyone else who’s joined our court. His work overall looks very different, on balance, than we’ve had before.”

This is the first time since Shepard joined the bench in 1985 that the court has had representation from the trial courts, appellate bench and private practice at the same time. That’s significant because the public face of the Indiana Supreme Court has expanded during the past decade, putting the justices out in the legal community more often. David has taken on multiple roles that include rulemaking, court reform, admission and discipline, judicial and attorney education and juvenile justice issues throughout the state.

“I didn’t have any specific expectations and so everything has been pretty new,” David said. “I’m still establishing a niche and learning as much as I can, and I am still in awe of what I’m doing and where I’m at.”

On the case-specific side, David has remained busy. By his one-year anniversary date, he’d written 14 of the 72 non-per curium opinions that included sentence modifications, post-conviction relief, mortgage foreclosures, due process rights, statutory and common law rights and juvenile justice. He’s participated in more than 70 oral arguments as a justice, the court’s argument docket shows.

Appellate attorneys and court watchers credit David for following the promise he made when Gov. Mitch Daniels appointed him: that he’d be true to the rule of law. They say David has been a thoughtful and independent voice on the court so far.

Indianapolis appellate attorney Bryan Babb¸ who has argued four times before David, said it’s obvious the new justice has become more confident on the bench. During Babb’s first argument before David late last year, Babb noted that David asked few questions. But that’s changed over time, and he’s become more engaged with each argument.

“Each justice has a different style during arguments, and my sense is that he will be one of the justices people can expect to receive a lot of questions from,” Babb said. “It’s too early in his career to predict completely or accurately the type of questions you’ll get, such as the hypothetical questions you expect from Justice (Frank) Sullivan, but so far they seem to be very practical and down to earth.”

David said he enjoys preparing for the arguments, and he takes different approaches each time – sometimes writing questions down ahead of time; other times, he jots down notes and questions based on what his colleagues ask. As for the question of determining which justice will author an opinion, the court has a practice of distributing work equally and allowing the person who might best present the group’s consensus to write it, the chief justice said. David has been ready to volunteer on any issue, according to Shepard.

“His productivity is everything we’d hoped for, and I expect he’ll find even more ways to be a fine contributor,” Shepard said.

Of all the cases during his first year, the one that’s drawn the most attention has been Barnes v. State, in which David wrote for a 3-2 majority ruling that neither a common law right to resist police nor the statutory castle doctrine are defenses to battery on a police officer. That May 12, 2011, decision was the fourth opinion David had written, and it sparked a immediate reaction from the general public, lawmakers and legal observers who saw it as an attack on Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures. Opponents organized a protest rally in front of the Indiana Statehouse where they displayed signs with messages like “Justice David is an Enemy of the Constitution.”

Lawmakers formed a study subcommittee to explore the issue and a four-person panel is finalizing proposed legislation that would sidestep the Barnes ruling and revise state statute to protect both homeowners and police and give people the right to use reasonable resistance except in domestic violence situations. The court in late September granted a rehearing request in Barnes and David wrote the opinion that clarified but upheld the earlier decision.

Looking back, David says he wishes the Barnes decision hadn’t been interpreted in such a sweeping fashion.

He refused extra security after death threats directed at him following the decision, and he defends the peaceful protests that took place outside the Statehouse after the original ruling was issued. “If the Barnes case was about doing away with constitutional rights, then I would have been out there, too,” David said.

Aside from the Barnes controversy, David has become more comfortable with his new role as a justice. With his trial-level experience and passion for child and family issues, many within the juvenile justice system say they’ve looked to him for more guidance and representation from the Supreme Court. David penned two significant juvenile-focused cases in recent months that highlighted concerns about the Department of Child Services – A.B. v. State, involving out-of-state juvenile placements, and In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.G., involving parental rights’ termination hearing practices.

Several juvenile judges say that having “one of their own” on the high court is a positive change.

“I enjoyed in the opinions how Justice David used his own experiences about DCS practices that we’ve felt are often too shabby,” LaPorte Superior Magistrate Judge Nancy Gettinger said about the two rulings in which the new justice has criticized the state agency. “It’s nice to have someone in our corner who’s aware of how this plays out in our courtrooms.”

The chief justice echoed that sentiment, saying that the other two justices on the court who served on the bench before joining the Supreme Court – himself as Vanderburgh Superior judge before 1985 and Robert Rucker at the intermediate appellate level before his appointment in 1999 – are so far removed from those previous positions that it’s good to have David’s fresh perspective.

“It’s refreshing to have someone who just a year ago was on the front lines litigating and hearing these cases we see on appeal,” Shepard said. “Often during our conferences, he’ll offer his thoughts about the trial court functions based on his recent experiences. That’s a very useful viewpoint to have represented.”

David said he enjoys what he’s doing, and is working to keep the promise he made at his appointment about respecting the rule of law.

“Overall, I think it’s fair to say that I’m more comfortable and at ease with the process but no less humbled,” he said. “We’re trustees or guardians of the rule of law, and I am having a lot of fun every day.”•
 

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. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT