Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Vacancy On Supreme Court 2017 - Day 1: Report On Interview #4, Hon. Larry W. Medlock
This is Prof. Joel Schumm's report on the 4th interview of Day 1
When asked about qualities a trial court would bring to the Indiana Supreme Court, Judge Medlock discussed understanding how a case originates, plays out, and the split-second decisions that need to be made. He pointed to a recent jury trial in January, in which he took a recess to research an issue of first impression involving a recently enacted statute.
In response to a question about interpreting statutes, Judge Medlock said he would focus on the plain language and meaning while also discussing statutes in derogation of common law.
In response to a question from Mr. Feighner about the justice he would emulate, he paused and pointed to the Chief Justice, to much laughter. He then discussed Justice David, whom he identified as a friend and mentor.
In response to a question about dissenting, Judge Medlock said he is “generally a team player” and is not opposed to taking a dissenting position. “We are not all the same” and should not be expected to have the same feelings and interpretation about the law. This lets the lawyers and litigants know the Court is not rubber-stamping cases.
In response to a question about where to take a roadshow argument, he said it has been a long time the Court has been in Southern Indiana, except for Corydon. He would like to see the Court go to his Courthouse in Salem, which is being retired.
In response to a question about “why he wants the job,” he discussed the thousands of files from his private practice, public defender, and as a judge—probably more than 25,000—and said he had seen a wide range of issue and could bring that experience to the Court.
In response to a question about the administrative work of the Court, Judge Medlock said he would be willing to do anything asked of him. He pointed to the cost savings of e-filing, and said the fees could be increased to allow for better technology. The money could also be used to create databases to promote public safety in areas like protective orders and mental health cases.
In response to a question about a case that involves creation of a new right, Judge Medlock said he is not one who “creates something out of nothing” and would not create new rights. The duty of judges is to apply the law fairly and interpret statutes.
In response to a question about his background, Judge Medlock pointed to his unique and varied job experience as well as his master’s degree from School of Public and Environmental Affairs.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 21, 2017 11:06 AM
Posted to Vacancy on Supreme Court - 2017