|
Boshkoff, Ellen B. - Attorney, Baker & Daniels
Focused on her depth of experience from practicing for 20 years. Noted she’s been in the trenches, arguing cases in trial courts and on appeal. Her answers demonstrated she had done her homework and had a good sense of the many functions of the Court. She emphasized her ability and desire to learn, while candidly admitting unfamiliarity with some areas of law. During and at the end of the interview, she noted she was “passionate” about her clients and the law. She would bring passion and energy to the job. Perhaps the most surprising comment was that she tries a lot of cases: “I don’t know if it’s because I’m stubborn.”
Clapp, Sean M. - Attorney, Clapp Ferrucci Secured the biggest laugh. Chief Justice Shepard noted Clapp had recently been to the Court. Mr. Clapp, who prevailed, remarked it was a “very well-written opinion.” [This was the 6/1/10 openion in Wells Fargo Bank, authored by the CJ] Ms. Keck asked Mr. Clapp to identify a significant recent opinion. Mr. Clapp (after a pause) did not identify an Indiana Supreme Court case but instead summarized the recent SCOTUS case from Hastings Law School. He said the Court “got it right.” [That would be Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, (Sup. Ct., June 28, 2010)] Mr. Gavin quoted Justice Marshall, “Do what you think is right and then let the law catch up,” and asked if Mr. Clapp could defend that.” Mr. Clapp did not wholly reject the view, noting there are rights and wrongs. Judges are confined by rights and responsibilities in the Constitution.
Nation, Steven R. - Judge, Hamilton Superior Court 1 Emphasized his experience in private practice and primarily as a prosecutor and as a judge. Discussed programs and alternatives to incarceration, emphasizing reaching out to kids early on. In a response to a question from Mr. Trimble, he discussed the wide range of cases heard as a judge (juvenile, criminal, probate, negligence and contract, civil commitments). Some have been very complex; the Geist zoning case included 30,000 pages of documents. Mr. Feighner observed that Judge Nation had letters from law enforcement and defense lawyers (Jim Voyles). Judge Nation noted after a murder trial that Mr. Voyles had thanked him for a “fair trial.”
Woods, Judy L. - Attorney, Bose McKinney & Evans The Chief Justice asked Ms. Woods about her work as a judicial officer with the Presbyterian Church. She explained the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church predated the United States Constitution. The types of cases heard are administrative (2/3) and disciplinary (1/3). She included as a writing sample one of the decisions she wrote for the church. Mr. McCashland asked if, as a result of that work, she had a judicial philosophy. She responded that she is a “very careful jurist.” Ms. Keck asked about smoking ordinances. Ms. Woods responded, whether a smoking ordinance or religious clause issue, the personal interest must be examined against the broader community interest. The personal interest must be considered first. Mr. Feighner asked about the impact of Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Willis. Ms. Woods responded she has been surprised the decision did not have much of an effect. Some insurance firms still use in-house or captive firms, but many private firms still do insurance defense work. Mr. McCashland asked about the importance of collegiality. Although judges should engage intellectually and may dissent, Ms. Woods emphasized they must have respect for each other. In concluding, Ms. Woods noted that she is very bright, an excellent writer, and “very fair.” She is ready for a new phase in life.
Foster, Monica - Attorney, Office of Monica Foster Ms. Foster gave a particularly down-to-earth and energetic interview. She explained she has argued many cases at the Indiana Supreme Court, and those cases have been “the best time” she has had as a lawyer. The justices’ job is “the coolest job” a person could have. She described herself as “fun to work with” and has a good reputation of working with others. She discussed her work over the past several years for the Mexican Consulate. Her work has helped her better understand the concerns of the immigration population and the importance of justice and the appearance of justice. Mr. McCashland asked if Ms. Foster talks to high school students, which she does and very much enjoys. Mr. Gavin asked what she tells high school students about the death penalty, which is a primary part of her practice. For every “off the charts” bad crime, the defendant’s childhood has been every bit as bad with all sorts of abuse. Although she thinks the death penalty is “bad public policy,” it is constitutional. She must put aside her personal feelings as a lawyer and would do the same as a justice. Mr. Trimble asked how her criminal law background would translate to civil cases. Her work “pushes the boundaries” of the Constitution and statutory interpretation; the court sets those boundaries. The rules of evidence are the same in civil and criminal cases. She was the first candidate to say that it is important a woman be on the court. Women would bring something different to the court.
Brown, Elaine B. - Judge, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Brown explained that she would bring a wide range of experience from private practice, as a trial judge, and most recently an appellate judge. The last six years of her private practice were complex civil litigation. She noted her proven judicial temperament and positive relationship with her colleagues. She explained her humble upbringing and her understanding of blue collar Hoosiers. She did not mention the importance of appointing a women but did note that elevating a Court of Appeals judge would encourage the best and brightest to apply to the COA in the future. She lauded the Kernan-Shepard report, which shows justices are “smart people” and understand and work with other branches of government. Among her priorities, she would like to address prison overcrowding and disparate sentencing, including programs for drug-addicted defendants. She would also like to work on family law issues to make them “less adversarial.” Judge Brown was the only candidate who seemed to have prepared an opening speech and occasionally looked down at notes. She thanked the commission for allowing her to deliver “that monologue,” which lasted more than ten minutes.
Stump, Yasmin L. - Attorney, Office of Yasmin L. Stump Ms. Stump identified three reasons for applying: (1) her upbringing to believe public service is a high honor, (2) the importance and opportunity of mentoring, and (3) opportunity to engage in intellectual debate and consideration of legal issues. In response to a question from the Chief Justice about issues facing women in the legal profession, Ms. Stump noted gender bias still exists but has lessened over her twenty years in practice. Mr. Gavin asked about her work on eminent domain cases and her view of Kelo. Ms. Stump did not know how she would have decided Kelo because she did not know all the underlying facts in the record. Ms. Keck, from Evansville, asked about her work for the State in acquiring land for I-69. Ms. Stump acknowledged the emotion surrounding the issue and explained her role as working for the State of Indiana, which includes the landowners. She emphasized that everyone who comes before the court is entitled to equal treatment.
Steele, Brent E. - Attorney, Steele & Steele; State Senator Sen. Steele emphasized he was raised with a commitment to public service. He believes his work as a legislator, forging relationships on both sides of the aisle, prepared him well for work on the Court. Mr. Feighner asked Sen. Steele’s view on merit selection. While in the Senate, he voted against Sen. Mike Young’s bill to elect appellate judges. Sen. Steele noted that raising money is the hardest thing he must do as a legislator. People give money because they think legislators will vote a certain way. If the legislator does not vote that way, the money will dry up. If Indiana elected judges statewide, they would be required to raise a lot of money. Judges should be free of that requirement and the concerns about fairness for those who have contributed money. Mr. Trimble asked how his background as a legislator would prepare him for work on the Court. He emphasized the importance of listening to colleagues because “many times they are right.” Mr. McDonald asked Sen. Steele’s view of increasing the size of the Court of Appeals. He was on the committee that considered the issue in 2009. He suggested the court’s workload did not require an increase, especially in this economic climate.
Craney, Jane Spencer - Judge, Morgan Superior Court 3 Judge Craney emphasized her experience, including law review in law school, trying many jury trials as a prosecutor, and working as a trial judge. She believes her collegiality and personality would fit well with the Court. Mr. Gavin asked about her comments regarding State v. Martin Murray (p. 8 of application). She pursued, at the elected prosecutor’s insistence, the death penalty in a case against an 18 year old defendant with no criminal record. She believed death was not an appropriate sentence and put on no evidence in the penalty phase and allowed defense counsel to present objectionable information. She resolved never again to ask for a death sentence unless she was willing to carry it out herself. Nevertheless, she believes in capital punishment in rare cases and would uphold the law if appointed to the Court. Mr. Trimble asked about opportunities to improve the judiciary. She is interested in JLAP and working on wellness issues. She has been impressed with a program called Volunteers for Probation from Michigan, which involves civilians mentoring probationers. She has been a member of the Race and Gender Commission, which is holding hearings around the state. She believes the next big focus will be the juvenile justice system and reducing disparities within it. She described her judicial philosophy as “truth and fairness.”
Drew, Kiply S. - Associate General Counsel, Indiana University Three things attract Ms. Drew to the position: she loves the State of Indiana, the law, and this Court. She clerked for Justice DeBruler twenty years ago. She would be good at it based on her intellect, her writing ability, and her appreciation for the role of Court. She has been the first candidate to discuss the importance of clear writing. She appreciates that the Court, unlike SCOTUS, is not a “political court.” Based on her clerking experience she understands and appreciates the importance of collegiality. As in-house counsel at Indiana University, she has engaged in a wide variety of legal practice. University counsel is one of the few remaining “generalists.” She has to learn a lot of different areas of law in a short period of time: “You never know what the next phone call is going to bring.” She is actively involved in working with outside counsel on all aspects of cases. She is the “eviction queen” at IU, which is one part of the job she enjoys least. IU is the “nicest landlord in town,” and will allow students to remain through the end of a semester.
Haseman, Christine Talley - Lawrence County Deputy Prosecutor Ms. Talley was a judge for one year in Monroe County (appointed by Gov. Daniels and not reelected in the heavily Democratic County) and previously a juvenile referee in Lawrence County. Although she heard several cases every day as a judge, she appreciated that each case was the most important case to that litigant. When asked about lawyer advertising, she responded there is very little in Lawrence County. She summarized some of the key attributes of the next justice as collegiality, passion about the law, energy, and a willingness to listen. In response to a question about her judicial philosophy, she emphasized the importance of “ensuring the courts are open to the citizens.” In what could be viewed as less-than-positive sign, one (lawyer) commission member excused himself from the table and went to get a cup of coffee during the interview.
Carmichael, Vicki L. - Judge, Clark Superior Court 1 The Chief Justice asked Judge Carmichael about sentencing issues and the relative role of trial and appellate judges. As a trial judge she could “really look at the individual” and the crime. Alternatives to prison are important. When sentencing a female defendant convicted of child molesting, she treated her the same as she would treat a male defendant (a response that provoked nodding in agreement from some commission members). She emphasized the importance of appellate judges looking at the same things the trial judge did, albeit removed from the emotion of the courtroom. Ms. Keck asked Judge Carmichael about her work as a public defender. She was selected for the chief public defender position because of her appellate background. Her role was to “represent the process,” ensuring the rules were followed and defendants received a fair trial. Mr. Trimble asked about her experience with civil cases. She practiced family law in private practice and has presided over civil trials since becoming a judge. She has served as an adjunct professor (employment and business law) of Ottawa University, which has a campus in Jeffersonville with about 120 students and includes both live and distance classes.
Gull, Frances C. - Judge, Allen Superior Court Mr. Gavin asked Judge Gull about the possible transition from the role of a trial judge, where her word is final, to the role of an appellate judge. She responded she was “keenly aware” of the role of an associate justice through her work on committees. Her role would be to listen and contribute, as she done in committee work. She described the Constitution as “a living, breathing document.” Judges can “interpret” the Constitution without “trampling” it. In response to Mr. Trimble’s question about the ideal qualities of a justice, Judge Gull mentioned the following: patient, fair, impartial, neutral, tolerant, respectful, and courteous. In response to questions about her exclusive practice and judging experience in the criminal arena, she replied has more jury experience than any other candidate, and hearsay, for example, is the same in both civil and criminal courts. Mr. Gavin asked about disparate treatment in sentencing. She explained the site of the crime might make a difference; crimes “shock or horrify” those in a small rural county and garner a long sentence while a defendant in the urban county, where the public is less shocked, may get a shorter sentence. The Supreme Court has appropriately reduced sentences that are too long.
Marcuccilli, Christine M. - Attorney, Rothberg Logan & Warsco Ms. Marcuccilli emphasized that she would bring flexibility, longevity, and vision to the job. As to flexibility: She has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases. Much of her experience has been in “economic areas,” such as foreclosure, receivership, and bankruptcy. On longevity, she reminded the commission that she was the youngest applicant and could provide continuity as the Court’s membership changes. [See 7/2/10 ILB entry by Schumm, "Age at Appointment and Years of Service of Recent Justices."] Mr. Gavin asked about her work for the city of Fort Wayne in a case involving a smoking ordinance, which was upheld on appeal. Mr. Gavin expressed concern if cities can ban smoking, can they ban trans fats? Ms. Marcuccillii responded that smoke could not be easily contained and affect others while trans fats would not. She expressed interest in working on rule-making, such as allowing service by email, and the rules of professional conduct.
Slaughter, Geoffrey G. - Attorney, Taft Mr. Slaughter expressed an interest in the “intellectual challenge” that serving on the Court would bring. He would bring a commitment to excellence in his work, civility, respect for lawyers, and collegiality. Mr. Feighner asked Mr. Slaughter for his view on merit selection. Mr. Slaughter received a round of laughter when responding he should withhold judgment until he sees the results of this process. He then explained the system works much better than elections, which have produced divisive courts in other states. He has been involved in the Federalist Society but does not believe the group has a view on merit selection. Ms. Keck had “dog-eared” the pages of Mr. Slaughter’s application listing his five most significant cases and asked which he thought was the most important. He responded with Burris v. Parks, and explained as a result of his work in capital litigation he had gained an appreciation for “getting it right” in death penalty cases.
Henderson, Susan Orr - Judge, Fountain Circuit Court The importance of geographic diversity was brought up by commission members Keck and McDonald while interviewing Judge Henderson, the only judge in rural Fountain County. In response to Ms. Keck’s question about what geography (a small rural county) would bring to the Court, Judge Henderson explained that judges in small counties have to hear all types of cases, unlike judges in larger counties, who often specialize. In response to McDonald’s comment that much of the population lives in rural counties, Judge Henderson noted that all judges face similar problems in finding and funding services. In response to Mr. Feighner’s question about what would it mean to trial court judges if one was appointed, the judge responded that she and others have a wide variety of experience, which would inform the decisionmaking on the Supreme Court. Mr. Gavin asked a long question, which I believe was taken verbatim from this George Will column about questions to ask Elena Kagan: Some persons argue that our nation has a "living" Constitution; the court has spoken of "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking against "changeability" and stressing "the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution," says "its whole purpose is to prevent change -- to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away. A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that 'evolving standards of decency' always 'mark progress,' and that societies always 'mature,' as opposed to rot." Is he wrong? Judge Henderson would not say Justice Scalia was wrong, but emphasized the importance of adhering to precedent.
Owens, Bryce D. - Attorney, Owens & Owens Mr. Owens told the commission he would bring 25 years of “work in the trenches.” Besides one year as a clerk, he has been in private practice in Pendleton (pop. 3,000) resolving problems for real people. The Chief Justice commented that many candidates had described themselves as engaged in general practice and observed this was especially true for Mr. Owens. When asked by Mr. McCashland a question about his judicial philosophy, Mr. Owens responded, “to interfere the least possible” and “provide guidance only when necessary.” Mr. Owens told the commission he regularly reads opinions posted online and his general practice background would be an advantage to the Court. He mentioned the Court’s recent opinion in U.S. Bank v. Integrity Land Title, stressing a need for understanding the history and evolution of the title business. His lengthy and somewhat rambling summary of title procedures did not appear to engage the commission members, who had understandably become a bit less energetic in the late afternoon. They appeared more interested in discussing sentencing disparities earlier in the day.
Spahr, Robert A. - Judge, Miami Circuit Court Judge Spahr’s interview was easily the most awkward of the day. Although the commission members were very gracious in their questioning, the thought of Judge Spahr asking questions during oral argument or giving speeches as a representative of the Court would likely be a cause for concern. Throughout the interview he would pose questions to the members. “Do you have any other questions?” “Have you ever written a book?” “Have you ever got a call at 1:00 in the morning?” (He did when representing child services.) In response to a question from the Chief Justice about how child services has changed over the years, Judge Spahr offered a pointed critique of the centralization of services in recent years and the accompanying restrictions on payment. As a lawyer, Spahr worked for child services for 20 years, observing he had been “blessed with intervening to protect children all his adult life.” Although counties were doing an effective job several years ago, he is gravely concerned with the direction in recent years. As a judge he is supposed to be protecting children but is concerned about “micro-managing” and cut-back in services. When asked about the state of the judiciary, he responded that trial courts are often “confused” by appellate opinions. There is not enough direction or clarity in his view. Finally, in response to his question to the commission about how many of them have written a book, he urged members to visit his website. (The books there are self-described on the site as a “fantasy/adventure series is geared toward grades 4-5.”) He concluded, “I’m a good writer; you will see that on the website.”
Tribbett, Donald J. - Attorney, Tribbett Law Office In my interview preview post yesterday, I noted the importance of personality and demeanor and opined, “Arrogance, condescension, and strained or awkward conversation could work against, or eliminate, a candidate.” Of the 19 candidates interviewed today, Mr. Tribbett seemed to have the biggest problem in this department. In response to the first question from the Chief Justice about his reasons for applying, Tribbett quipped, “It’s not the money.” He noted that he could not have applied ten years ago because of financial commitments but will be making his last tuition payment in the next year. Beginning an interview by stressing the inability to live on $150,000/year stands in stark contrast to many other candidates who talked about the poor economy and efforts they have undertaken or would undertake on the Court to help the less fortunate. But it got worse. He admitted part of the reason for applying was an “ego thing” and proceeded to list his many accomplishments in a monologue that used well over half of his interview time. He told the commission he would not need to “learn as much as some” because of his diverse practice background. In stark contrast to the modesty of applicants throughout the day, at one point Mr. Tribbett literally patted himself on the back when telling the commission how he had negotiated a land sale for five times what the sellers had thought it was worth. In response to Mr. McCashland’s question about collegiality, Mr. Tribbett responded that he gets along with the people he deals with “most of the time.” Although Mr. Tribbett worked as a clerk for the court (in the administrator’s office) in the 1970s and appears to have a varied and distinguished record of practice, his demeanor during the interview would seem nearly fatal to any chance of appointment to a Court that values collegiality and modesty.
Mulvaney, Karl L. - Attorney, Bingham McHale The Chief Justice started by noting that Mr. Mulvaney, as the long-time court administrator, had observed proceedings around the conference table more than just about anyone. Mr. Mulvaney believes it would be a “pinnacle” for any appellate lawyer to join the Court. He recounted with agreement the CJ’s comments from decades ago how lucky he would be to come to this job every day. In response to Mr. Trimble’s question about the characteristics of an ideal justice, he stressed the importance of being open minded and willing to listen. The person must be collegial, expressing differences of opinion with respect. In response to Ms. Keck’s question about the greatest challenges facing the judiciary, Mr. Mulvaney stressed the importance of cases involving children. He described the termination of parental rights as the most difficult cases and thinks the Court has done a good job addressing the needs of children. In response to Mr. McDonald’s concern about Mr. Mulvaney’s lack of jury trial experience, Mr. Mulvaney observed he had tried disciplinary, mandate of funds, and other types of cases. He has worked with excellent trial lawyers and been trusted to work on their cases. In contrast to yesterday’s final interview, Mr. Mulvaney was exceedingly modest.
Moberly, Robyn L. - Judge, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 5 Picking up with a familiar theme of other applicants, Judge Moberly stressed her widely varying “general practice” of law for 17 years before becoming a judge. Her “work in the trenches,” followed by 14 years (in criminal and civil courts) as a judge make her a well-rounded candidate. Judge Moberly “loves to write” and almost always takes cases under advisement to write (and in the process think through) a decision. She appreciates the importance of clear and precise writing. Mr. Gavin asked about the “goal of criminal justice system,” and Judge Moberly responded “rehabilitation” primarily, but also deterrence and punishment. In response to Feighner’s question about the transition from trial judge to multi-member court, Judge Moberly noted she has done a lot of committee work and enjoys the “give and take” that comes with working with others. In response to Mr. McCashland’s questions about collegiality, Judge Moberly recounted a case where two lawyers have been going at either other in unflattering emails, which has been attached to pleadings. She has told them this does not accomplish anything and can harm their reputations and relationships in future practice. Judge Moberly dresses in a suit and sets a professional tone, unlike some trial judges (no names were mentioned). The Chief Justice evoked some laughter when he observed that Judge Moberly’s application is the only one of hundred over the years in which the term “vampire” appears (see p. 17). She was sued in federal court by “a self-avowed vampire and former gubernatorial candidate.” Judge Moberly was personable, engaging, and thoughtful in her responses. She strikes me as the strongest trial judge candidate interviewed to this point.
Emkes, Cynthia S. - Judge, Johnson Superior Court 2 Ms. Keck asked about the significant population growth in Johnson County and how it has impacted the administration of justice. Johnson County ended random rotation filing, allowing judges to specialize and hear specific types of cases. Mr. Feighner asked what it would mean for a trial judge to be appointed, and Judge Emkes noted trial judges would see it as a honor, showing their work has been taken into account. “I don’t consider it an elevation to the Supreme Court; it would be an express elevator.” Filling Justice Boehm’s shoes would be impossible for any candidate, but she would be honored to serve on the Court. Mr. Gavin asked Judge Emkes about her work as a young judge in a death penalty case. Although the jury was not able to reach a unanimous decision, she imposed death. She noted death penalty cases are very emotional, and the last evidence heard by the jury was mitigating circumstances. The jurors were “worn out” at the end of the five-week trial while being sequestered. She thought she had a better grasp of the law and was less wrapped up in emotion in making the decision. In response to Mr. McCashland’s question about the legal profession being viewed as a business and not a profession, Judge Emkes noted that many lawyers still do pro bono work. Advertising is fine as long as it complies with the rules of professional conduct.
Menges, William C. Jr. - Judge, Howard Superior Court 1 Judge Menges said a position on the Supreme Court would be attractive to any lawyer. His background includes work as a prosecutor, public defender, and now a judge. He has “no idea” how many jury trials he has tried—over 100. He did a lot of appellate work as chief public defender. He has reduced pending caseload and shortened disposition time since becoming a judge. He has a solid academic background. One complaint trial judges have about appellate courts is a lack of connection to “real-life experience.” Specifically, he mentioned Judge Najam’s recent opinion in Gosha v. State as “a good opinion,” as long as it is narrowly followed. Judge Menges expressed concerned that notice and a hearing could lengthen what needs to be a swift process in terminating participants in drug court. Judge Menges noted important characteristics for a supreme court justice included being a strong leader and patient. In response to Ms. Keck’s question about his experience as public defender, Judge Menges noted that most judges have been prosecutors. His work as a public defender (and prosecutor) provides some balance. In response to Mr. McCashland's question about collegiality, he believes there has been a decline in collegiality over the past thirty years. Judge Menges thinks it is important for the Supreme Court to set a good example.
Fisher, Thomas M. - Solicitor General, Indiana Attorney General's Office Mr. Fisher has wanted to be a judge since he clerked for Judge Kanne on the Seventh Circuit. He has considered over the years where he would want to work, as he has argued in both federal and state courts. When this current position came open, it fit well with his “career trajectory.” Mr. McCashland observed that Mr. Fisher has a very good job now and he has “not heard a negative comment about” him. Why would he want to go to the Supreme Court? Mr. Fisher responded the Soliciter General job cannot last forever; it will turn over in the future. He has been very committed to the job but thinks being a judge is the next logical step. The SG job has been “excellent training.” The thought of serving on the SC “thrills me to no end” in making a difference for the people of the state. In response to questions about the characteristics of an ideal justice, he cited “intellectual curiosity,” a sense of fairness, dispassion, and “open-mindedness about where the law can take us.” In response to Mr. Gavin’s question about his lack of trial experience, Mr. Fisher opined it was not “debilitating” in any way. Each candidate brings different things; it would be “just one more thing” he could have brought. (For those suspecting Tribbett-type moments, this was the closest and more mild.) Ms. Keck asked about ordinances restricting smoking ordinances, but Mr. Fisher was reluctant to discuss an issue that could come before the Court. Generally, though, he said the methodology would be the same as with any constitutional issue; he would look to the text and history of Constitution. Unlike some of yesterday’s candidates, he did not espouse the view of a living and evolving Constitution. Mr. Feighner observed the Court is often unanimous, but Justice Boehm has sometimes been a swing vote in 3-2 cases. When asked how his judicial philosophy would differ from Justice Boehm’s, Mr. Fisher was hesitant to describe others. Mr. Fisher believes courts exist to resolve disputes. He is a textualist, an originalist. He would not impose his own views. He merely said sometimes Justice Boehm has disagreed with the views expressed by the Attorney General’s office. (The most recent example would be the June 30, 2010 Supreme Court decision in the voter ID case, where Justice Boehm was the lone dissent.) Although Mr. Fisher has been involved with the Hudson Institute and the Cato Institute, he does not look to those for “opinion leadership” but rather for debate and an opportunity to keep abreast of issues. Mr. Fisher is “very much in favor” of merit selection, which is essential to judicial independence.
Ayers, Cynthia J. - Judge, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 4 Judge Ayers has been in private practice before serving on different trial courts for more than twenty years. She would bring a unique perspective, including as a single mom working full-time while in law school. She believes judges should provide every citizen the right to redress in courts, often before a jury unlike in many countries, and on appeal. Judge Ayers has worked for two years on a committee revising the civil jury instructions into plain English. She believes this was important but suspects some lawyers will be hesitant about some changes in the terms, as lawyers often cite the instructions in arguments to the jury. She believes there has been a decline in collegiality (for example, more motions and requests for sanctions), but she teaches law students that “what goes around comes around” and how important it is to work well with others. They should step back and not become personally involved. She agrees many view law as a business because of the importance of billable hours. Judge Ayers has unique experience as a probation officer before attending law school. She said alternatives to incarceration are important; we cannot afford to send everyone to prison. Electronic devices now allow for monitoring.
David, Steven H. - Judge, Boone Circuit Court Judge David loves being a trial court judge and loves being in Boone County. He has a diverse background of state practice, not to mention international and military law. He understands what lawyers go through and tries to operate a court that is user-friendly and respects everyone. He understands the commission is electing a “steward” for the Court and wants to be part of the future. He was involved in drafting parenting time guidelines. The guidelines have kept some people out of the courtroom by setting default rules. Their beauty lies in the comments, which are not in “lawyer speak” but rather provide specific examples understandable to litigants. Mr. Feighner asked about Judge David’s work in the Zolo Azania death penalty case. Judge David said he was appointed special judge in that case and would never turn down such an appointment. He found the State could not proceed with the death penalty after 23 years of delays and new trials. He was reversed 3-2. He simply stated, “It is what it is.” He supports the concept of the death penalty and believes it is appropriate in the right circumstances. He respects the Supreme Court’s opinion and “will march forward with that precedent.” He is proud to be a Hoosier. When justices dissent in Indiana, they do it respectfully. Unlike some other states, where lawyers “laugh” at their elected appellate judges’ insults to each other, the judiciary here treats each other with respect. In response to Mr. Gavin’s question about using international law in considering constitutional issues, Judge David noted his experience has been limited to the human rights context. Mr. McDonald asked if Judge David could be called back into active duty. He has no intention of re-engaging and has no obligation to do so. He provoked laughter when he said, if he had been asked if the size of the Court should be expanded, he would have suggested a 34-member court.
Bonaventura, Mary Beth - Judge, Lake Superior Court, Juvenile Division Judge Bonaventura was selected in 1993 (in part by Chief Justice Shepard) through merit selection in Lake County. When asked about the 2009 legislative changes that require DCS to pay for placements (but allows a role in recommending those placements to judges), Judge Bonaventura explained the changes have made judges more mindful of costs. Not only is she a steward of children but is now also a steward of the taxpayers. Mr. Trimble was impressed with Judge Bonaventura’s “energy” and wondered how it would transfer to the Supreme Court. She would learn and master what the Supreme Court does. She is a “people person” and believes she would fit in. She thinks she could bring a juvenile expertise that is lacking. (Note: Justice Sullivan has written and taken an interest in juvenile issues.) Mr. Feighner asked how Judge Bonaventura could reach out to small, rural counties. She noted she serves on the Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee, which includes judges from smaller counties, who sometimes call her to discuss issues. When asked by Mr. Gavin about the goal of criminal justice system, Judge Bonaventura responded, first and foremost, to “keep people safe in the community” and later added in a “cost-effective way.” Ms. Keck asked her view of televising proceedings. Although she was part of a project allowing some camera access (for example, the “Juvies” show on MTV), she explained this was the Chief Justice’s idea in which she participated. She thinks cameras normally should not be in juvenile courtrooms. She thinks televising “some types of criminal cases” may have merit. When asked about her judicial philosophy, she responded that she treats people the way she would want to be treated.
Willis, Mary G. -Judge, Henry Circuit Court Judge Willis believes judges should be educated at least to the level of the lawyers appearing before them. She participated in the statewide judicial strategic plan, which includes a requirement of 50% more judicial education beyond lawyer requirements. She noted there has been some push-back from judges, although many were already receiving additional education. The strategic plan also mentions creating “judicial districts.” More specialization among judges could be allowed, and the state could take on more funding of the judicial branch (most cost, beyond judicial salaries, is paid by counties). She acknowledged this would mean diminishing or ending the system of generalist judges (some of which are applicants for the position). Although larger districts could make it more difficult for citizens to get to court, the districts being considered would be fairly compact (26 statewide). Judge Willis has been involved with JTAC and technology issues. She stressed the importance of making information available to the public while limiting private/confidential information. In response to Mr. Trimble’s question about characteristics of a good justice, she emphasized the reasonable application of the law and need to explain the rules of the game and reasons for the ruling to litigants and lawyers. The Chief Justice asked about the evolution of women in the profession and continuing challenges. She noted the impropriety of asking professional women if they plan to have children. She ran for judge at age 35. She was pulled aside by a “well-meaning” person who said, “You want to be a judge? But you’re a girl.” She is frequently the only woman in a group of women making a decision and does well working with others.
Hughes, William J. - Judge, Hamilton Superior Court 3 Judge Hughes has been on the bench for 22 years; he believes people should be able to come to courts to find justice. He does not have an agenda to change things but does want to continue some things that have worked well. The Chief Justice asked about Judge Hughes involvement with jury reform. Indiana allows, and Judge Hughes is often asked about, allowing jurors to discuss the case while breaks and to ask questions of witnesses. Judge Hughes believes Indiana is “close to the top” on jury issues among states. Mr. Gavin asked about his work in the Chad Cottrell death penalty case and noted President Obama’s statements on looking for empathy in judges. Judge Hughes responded that personal passion has nothing to do with the role of a trial judge, rather, be sure their decision is required by the law and facts in that case—not their personal views. Mr. Feighner asked about the transition from a trial court judge to a multi-member appellate panel. Although judges have their own court, he is one of several judges in Hamilton County, which includes a combined budget, shared space, and shared responsibilities. He does not always think he’s right and benefits from considering the views of others. In response to Mr. McCashland’s question about three essential characteristics for judges, he mentioned humility (his wife has kept him humble, despite the black robe), a willingness to work hard (it can take a long time to research, consider, and decide a case), and good relationship management (a liking of people and willingness to listen to and engage them). In responding to a question about issues facing the judiciary, Judge Hughes mentioned accessibility of the courts, especially with more self-represented litigants. He also observed it is sometimes hard to know what a child wants in a custody matter, although it must be considered.
Nuechterlein, Clare Kraegel - Assistant Professor of Law, Valparaiso University Ms. Nuechterlein stressed her career of service, through her previous legal work and current work as a law professor. She would bring a depth and breadth of experience, as a city attorney, attorney for the Dept. of Education, and assistant U.S. Attorney. She tells law students in her first-year writing class that she is their “worst nightmare,” as a lawyer and former seventh English grade teacher. She has gained “quasi-judicial” experience through her work on the Indiana State Ethics Commission. She has been chair since 2007 and makes rulings on admissibility of evidence at hearing and writes final opinions. One of those opinions was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in a “fine opinion.” [Subhen Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Commission and Office of the Inspector General, an 8-page, 5-0 opinion, authored by Justice Boehm.] In response to the Chief Justice’s question about trends, she noted although the Ethics Commission has existed since 1976, the creation of the Inspector General in 2005 has allowed for more investigative power and increased the importance of the Commission. Ms. Keck asked about Ms. Nuechterlein’s experience in the U.S. Attorney’s office. She “earned her stripes as a litigator” there. She did all civil work and was in court a lot. She would also do appeals and had some surprising success in the Ninth Circuit. Mr. McCashland opined she seemed like a “take charge” person and wondered her views of collegiality. She stressed the importance of taking charge in a classroom, but noted she is a member of an 18-member faculty on which she works well with others through committees. She would be “calm and even tempered” and bring a “great curiosity” to the position.
Hardman, Lyle R. - Attorney, Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP Mr. Hardman stressed his broad-based civil litigation practice and legal writing experience as good preparation for the Court. When asked by the Chief Justice about his work on the (30-member) ISBA ethics committee, Mr. Hardman explained the commission discusses and offer opinions, sometimes in writing, on difficult ethical issues . Ms. Keck asked about involvement in significant constitutional matters, and Mr. Hardman noted he was on the losing end of a case involving the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice case. He has also represented lawyers in legal malpractice and noted missing the statue of limitations is a frequent basis for claims. They rarely reach the Supreme Court because lawyers often want to resolve the cases quickly, unlike some medical malpractice claims. He stressed the importance of professionalism, noting he runs into the same lawyers on a regular basis—unlike in Chicago where 50,000 lawyers rarely see each other. He described the attributes of an ideal justice as intelligent, ethical, hard-working, a researcher, and a good writer.
Wheat, Allen N. - Judge, Steuben Circuit Court Judge Wheat noted service on the Court would be the ultimate pinnacle of any lawyer’s career. He also noted “curiosity” as part of the reason for applying. He told the commission that until recently only twice in his 33-year marriage has his wife said, “we need to talk.” Both times he ended up being a father. This third time, though, she discussed mid-life crisis issues—such as expensive cars or new women—and noted others aspire to the Indiana Supreme Court. She said history treats two of the three harshly. Judge Wheat asked rhetorically why litigants in a civil case are entitled to an automatic change of judge in a civil case involving money but not in a criminal case involving liberty. That is what the rules currently provide. He could bring a useful perspective to the discussion of such issues if appointed to the Court. Mr. McCashland asked if Judge Wheat had noticed about any changes in the past twenty years in the ability of new lawyers. Judge Wheat noted the rise of mediation, which has diminished the number of great trial lawyers. He noted some new and even not-so-new lawyers never try cases and look like a deer caught in the headlights when in court.
Shirley, Curtis E. - Attorney, Law Office of Curtis E. Shirley Mr. Shirley served as a law clerk to Judge Noland (S.D. Ind.) and Judge Manion (7th Cir.). He has engaged in practice in a large firm and solo practice. He has taught high school and law school classes. He stressed he has a diverse and statewide practice. He has been in up to two-thirds of Indiana’s counties. He specializes in probate litigation but also does civil and even some criminal work. He has represented plaintiffs and defendants nearly equally. Words have meaning and consequence. Greatest care must be taken in the words used in opinions. The Chief Justice asked about Mr. Shirley’s work for the Legal Aid Society and wondered about the change for the need of those services. Mr. Shirley believes the Indianapolis Legal Aid Society is the “national standard,” serving more than 8,000 persons who appear at its office each year and making frequent court appearances. In response to a question about his qualifications for the position, Mr. Shirley explained when the position became available he received phone calls from some of his mentors (law school professors and lawyers) who encouraged him to apply. He said it was humbling to even be considered for the position. He believes his “qualities as a person” would fit well with service on the Court. If appointed, he noted in jest that his jokes would be funnier and he would have more friends. And because many of you are wondering and will ask . . . no, he was not asked about the disciplinary matter on page 15 of his application.
Kuzma, Abigail Lawlis - Consumer Counsel, Indiana Attorney General's Office Ms. Kuzma feels completely humbled and honored to be considered. She has been interested in the judiciary for many years. She served as staff to the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1980s. Public service is very important to her. She currently heads a consumer division of the AG’s office. The Chief Justice asked about her efforts in foreclosure cases. The bill that passed last year and allows homeowners to request a settlement conference. There seems to be a lack of communication in many cases, but the office is working to better educate the public about this right and how to exercise it. In light of Ms. Kuzma’s work for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Keck asked what questions should have been asked of nominees and were not. Ms. Kuzma observed a lot of senators' questions were about a specific case or issue and went on for a long time, but the nominee is not able to answer. We did not get an idea how the nominee would serve the people. Mr. McCashland asked how much time it took Ms. Kuzma to assemble her application (it is by far the longest, filing a binder of a few inches in width with writing samples). She responded, two entire, long weekends. Ms. Kuzma’s view of ideal characteristics of a justice: deep respect for the rule of law, humble, a good listener, and one who takes into consideration the view of others while engaging in debate. Fairness is perhaps the most important attribute.
|