ILNews

Semifinalists discuss important qualities of a justice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Wednesday interviewed 10 semifinalists to fill the vacancy on the Indiana Supreme Court created by the retirement of Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. Commission chair and Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson opened the interviews by asking each candidate what factors he or she believed the commission should be looking for in a justice.  Below are the first six interviews. The interviews are scheduled to wrap up around 4 p.m.

Delaware Circuit Judge Marianne Vorhees said she had worked with eight different judges, and her experience lent itself to the work of the state high court. “One of most important factors is someone who's open-minded and willing to work with others” and doesn't come to the court with an agenda, she said.

She said independence and a willingness to admit you’re wrong also are important, as well as having someone who’s independent but collegial.  

Commission member Jim McDonald commended Vorhees' “stellar career” but asked why Vorhees, as an elected Democrat, would expect Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to break tradition and be the first governor to appoint a judge of another party.

“I firmly believe the people of Indiana in the end don't care whether the justice is a Democrat or a Republican,” but instead would expect the justice to be the most qualified, she said.

Vorhees, when asked about a court decision with which she disagreed, cited the Barnes v. State decision, which she believed overreached.

Asked about the importance of diversity, Vorhees said the commission should consider various forms of diversity, including geographic and practice diversity. But she also said gender diversity was important.

“I never had anybody give me something because I'm a woman,” she said. “I think my application is strong and I think it stands on its own.”

Asked whether the end result or law was most important, Vorhees said the law, and cited an example in which a high school student with no criminal record was involved in an armed robbery with other young people and waived into adult court. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years executed at the Department of Correction. “I have absolutely no discretion; my hands are tied,” she said. Even though the penalty didn't seem just, “You don't have any discretion to disregard the law.”

Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford said he believed four things were most important in a Supreme Court justice: a broad legal background; superior administrative skills; the ability to make fair and wise decisions; and an exemplary temperament and collegiality skills.

“You need to have patience and respect for others' individual views,” Bradford said.

Bradford said he would bring to the court a breadth of experience in private practice, and as a deputy prosecutor, public defender, trial and appeals court judge. “The largest and most complex cases this state has to offer were the kind of cases I handled,” he said, noting cases involving the state's school funding formula, jail overcrowding and juvenile justice reform.

“I don't think there's any better preparation for being a Supreme Court justice,” Bradford said of his tenure on the COA.

Dickson noted Bradford's prolific work in the court, taking part in more than 2,300 decisions during his tenure, but mentioned that the work of the Supreme Court entailed more joint work among the justices than Bradford might have been accustomed to. Bradford said he would be willing to be where he needed to in order to serve the court and the state.

Commission member William Winingham noted that Bradford's energy and intensity sometimes could come across as less than congenial, and asked Bradford to provide an example of a time when he had been “warm and fuzzy.” Bradford said he thought people who watched oral arguments at the Court of Appeals would see that side.

“People who know me know I'm one of the most approachable judges,” he said. “It may feel intimidating, but it's never meant like that.”

On diversity, Bradford said his background was an example of diversity that should be considered. While acknowledging the importance of gender diversity, he said the quality of opinions was more important than what people looked like. “God made me who I am; I do not question his plan,” he said.

Bradford called the Indiana Supreme Court the gold standard for the nation and said he'd be humbled to apply his energy to the bench.

Indiana University Health general counsel Erin Reilly Lewis said personality was one of the most important qualities in a Supreme Court justice. “When you have a team of five sitting around this very table, it does take personality,” she said. “Someone with intelligence who's able to be a consensus builder.”

At 38, Lewis is the youngest of the 10 semifinalists, and Dickson asked whether she saw her age as a liability or an asset. “I think those concerned about my youth can be quite assured I will soon grow out of it,” she said. “I think the fact that I have done a varied amount of practice in my 13 years helps,” she said. She also noted that former Chief Justice Randall Shepard was about her age when he was appointed to the bench, and her selection would allow her to dedicate many years to public service.

Commission members also asked about Lewis' lack of trial experience and how she would get around that. She said she would rely on the experience of fellow justices. “I think I look at the issues carefully and look at the parameters of what you are reviewing as an appellate court judge.” She said she has the skills of a trial lawyer and can think quickly on her feet. “I don't think I'm hindered by the fact that I haven't had a jury trial,” she said.

Lewis worked in private civil practice with the court's most recent appointee, Justice Mark Massa. Asked about someone who she looked up to, she mentioned Susan Brooks, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. Lewis worked in that office for five years.

Lewis said justices should not legislate from the bench. When asked about a state Supreme Court ruling with which she disagreed, she cited the case involving  Brenda Moore, an intoxicated passenger in a car who had asked someone else to drive her home and was found guilty of public intoxication. She said Justice Robert Rucker wrote a dissent in that case that spoke to her about the possible implications were for people who had made the right decision but still faced punishment.

Geoffrey Slaughter, a partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, said legal ability, collegiality, civility and respect for the court's institutional role were important qualities for a justice.

“It's tremendously important that everyone get along well,” Slaughter said. “It's important the members of the court respect and appreciate each other's company.”

Slaughter said the Indiana Supreme Court has a distinguished reputation nationally that grows from the court carrying out its mission of interpreting law as it was written and meant to be interpreted. “Reputations are precious and they can be fleeting,” he said.

Commission members raised Slaughter's lack of trial experience and he said his experience in a number of civil and regulatory matters in federal and state courts as well as the Indiana attorney general's office were valuable. He paraphrased Sullivan's sentiment that if the court got something wrong, he slept well at night knowing the General Assembly was there to correct a matter.

Asked about an area the court could improve, Slaughter suggested the possibility of hiring professional managers to oversee some of the court's many administrative functions.

Allen Superior Judge Fran Gull said the commission should consider a candidate's prior experience, background, talent, and ability to follow precedent. She believed prior judicial experience was important.

“The big elephant in the room you've all been talking about is diversity,” Gull said. And while gender and racial diversity are important considerations, she said, “I don't think those are the be-all and end-all of what you should be looking for.”

Dickson noted that nearly all of Gull's experience was in criminal matters, but Gull noted that she also brought a deep pool of administrative experience. She said she thought her criminal law experience would complement the current justices who have an array of civil, juvenile and other practice experience.

Gull stressed her experience with problem-solving courts and said drug court and re-entry court, among others, save time and money and produce better outcomes for some offenders. She said every county should make such services available, but funding and resources were an issue.

Asked whether the state and federal constitutions were organic, living, breathing documents or matters of strict interpretation, Gull said, “I think there is room for both. It depends on the specific issue you will be wrestling with,” and whether the framers faced those issues in their day.

“It's absolutely imperative that if precedent is there, it's incumbent on the Supreme Court to uphold that percent,” she said. But where matters such as technology are concerned, justices need to evolve and change with the times.

Benesch partner Andrielle Metzel said she had reduced the most important considerations in a Supreme Court justice to four “C's”: competency, character, commitment and collegiality.

A justice should have the competency to carry out administrative functions as well as interpret the law. “This is not all about cases, though that is a significant responsibility.”

Metzel said that through her work as a member of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, she's had the opportunity to address issues of character, which she said is “always on the forefront of my mind. ... It's very important for us to uphold that integrity.” She mentioned a comment at a dinner party in which a friend recalled being on a beach 20 years ago when Metzel declined to have pictures or video taken of her because she hoped to be a judge one day.

Justices can be role models for judges and attorneys, Metzel said, by enhancing civility inside the courtroom and out. Providing guidance on use of social media, for instance, and writing dissents that don't contain scathing critiques of fellow justices can provide examples. “We see that it has a positive effect.”

In interpreting constitutional matters, Metzel said “my judicial philosophy is more conservative than not,” and “adhering to the law and the Constitution as it is written is first and foremost to me. It's not within the scope of the judiciary to change the way the Constitution operates even though times have changed.”

Regarding diversity, Metzel said the term has many meanings including professional experience. She said she didn't believe that race or gender diversity was a core value that should be considered in the commission's deliberations for a justice.

Metzel also compared the challenges the court faces today to those from the early 1990s. She found in a review of the State of the Judiciary from 1991 that said resources were tested by a recession and the technology on the march was that of fax machines. “Today we're talking about Odyssey and using electronic documentation in court. ... I see this as an evolving process.”

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. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT