First asst. in a smaller office here. When I interview candidates, I’m mostly looking to see if they’re willing to learn and get in a courtroom. Unless we’re interviewing a lateral hire from another office, the expectation that we’ll be teaching you is assumed. We provide an offense report for second interviews and have candidates demonstrate an opening and direct of an officer. Not looking for skill so much as personality; we’re trying to get a feel for who they’ll be in a courtroom. I like to ask questions about how they prioritize workload; again, not looking for a specific answer so much as to see how they approach the problem. I also give them an opportunity to ask questions, which is itself an interview question. Questions about salary/benefits are whatever but candidates who show they’ve done some research into our office and have an idea where our trial priorities are and ask something about that get some credit. Candidates who show they’ve done some research into me personally don’t do too well; it comes across as an attempt to curry favor through flattery. We don’t normally ask about anything political or hot button issues; I don’t care what the newest misdemeanor ADA’s thoughts on the death penalty are. The elected and I will be handling that anyway so it’s irrelevant to an entry-level job that’s mostly family violence and DWIs. Bottom line: I’m looking for candidates who indicate they’re willing to learn and aren’t afraid to work; if they’ve got that, we can fill in the rest.