ILNews

Allen Superior Judge John Surbeck receives national judicial award

Jennifer Nelson
August 15, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Allen Superior Judge John F. Surbeck Jr. received the 2012 William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence from the National Center for State Courts, the nonprofit organization announced Tuesday. The award is presented annually to a state court judge who exemplifies the highest level of judicial excellence, integrity, fairness, and professional ethics.

NCSC President Mary C. McQueen said that Surbeck is an inspiration and an example to everyone who works in the justice system.

Surbeck is the founder of reentry courts in Indiana and considered nationally to be a “trailblazer” in this area. The Indiana Legislature in 1999 passed a law known as the Community Transition Statute, which allows each county to develop its own transition program for inmates at the Department of Correction. In 2000, he worked with others to design the Allen County Reentry Court, which opened in July 2001. His decision to create the court came from his professional experience as a public defender from 1972 to 1988. He was appointed to Superior Court in 1988.  

Five years after establishing the court, statistics show that the program has reduced the rate of prisoners reoffending to 34 percent, compared to nearly 60 percent nationally.

“Judge Surbeck has made a tremendous and long-lasting impact on the courts of Indiana and elsewhere and has brought fresh ideas and a proven track record to the seemingly intractable problem of recidivism,” Indiana Chief Justice Brent E. Dickson and Lilia Judson, executive director, Division of State Court Administration, said in a letter of reference for the award.

Surbeck will receive his award from Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts Jr. Nov. 15 during a ceremony at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • ????????
    Please give me a brake, this "judge" is nothing more than a puppet on this town 100% manipulated by the procecuting attorney and the fort wayne system is a shame to have this kind of people in our society i have my own reasons I used to think that he was inpartial and fair, but i found out I was wrong, I m glad theres is a real judge at the end of our lives and that is the one we have to worry about, this guy is a shame to our justice system.

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT