ILNews

Judge: 'I didn't lie ...': Marion Superior jurist faces disciplinary panel

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Marion Superior Judge Grant W. Hawkins is used to spending his days in court. But on Oct. 6 and 7, he wasn't on the bench; the jurist was the one being judged.

Already, his former part-time commissioner has resigned and been permanently banned from any judicial role because of this issue, and Judge Hawkins is battling 11 misconduct charges against him that could mean his judicial career is on the line.

But before he finds out his fate, the judge is waiting for three out-of-county colleagues to decide whether he violated judicial canons by not adequately supervising his court and misleading an investigation into his court's conduct.

On the bench since January 2001, this is the first time Judge Hawkins has faced a judicial disciplinary hearing. While his demeanor during testimony and in conversations outside the Indiana Supreme Court courtroom clearly illustrated he's nervous about what could happen, he is unwavering in his assertion that he never tried to cover up anything.

"I don't deny I didn't have a good operation," Judge Hawkins said. "But I didn't lie, I didn't mislead anyone. I stand up to my mistakes."

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission in April filed about a dozen charges each against Judge Hawkins and his former part-time commissioner Nancy L. Broyles alleging delay and dereliction of duties relating to the handling of various cases. Mostly, the counts dealt with the handling of a post-conviction case that resulted in Indianapolis man Harold Buntin being held in prison for 22 months after DNA evidence cleared him of a 1984 rape, for which he'd spent a total of 13 years in prison.

Buntin petitioned for relief in 1998 based on DNA evidence that wasn't available during his trial that he hoped would clear him; it eventually did in 2005. Serving in a part-time capacity since 2001, Broyles was assigned his post-conviction hearing in March 2005 and took it under advisement in April.

The case came to light after Buntin received no word from his Indianapolis attorney, Carolyn Rader, or the court, despite his repeated attempts to get an answer. He contacted the commission to investigate the reason for the delay in early 2007.

After the commission got involved, Judge Hawkins investigated and discovered an array of problems: a missing file that was later located, an order that appeared to have been signed 13 months after Broyles took the case under advisement but was not properly processed, and confusion about what caused the delays in the first place. Eventually, Judge Hawkins issued a notice of delay March 8, 2007, but it took an additional six weeks and another inquiry from the Judicial Qualifications Commission before a hearing was scheduled and Buntin was released April 20, 2007.

Now, it's up to three judicial masters - Delaware Circuit Judge Marianne Vorhees, Lake Superior Judge Clarence Murray, and Elkhart Circuit Judge Terry Shewmaker - to sift through the evidence and case history. They presided over the hearing and are expected to issue a report to the high court by Nov. 14.

At the hearing, Disciplinary Commission attorney Adrienne Meiring described a disorganized and delay-ridden court where Judge Hawkins failed to provide adequate supervision. Defense attorney Kevin McGoff contended that the sitting judge wasn't personally responsible for actions he wasn't aware of and at no time misled the investigating commission or parties involved in the case.

McGoff countered most of the witnesses by pointing out that much remains uncertain about the circumstances causing the delay and how differing recollections weren't proof that anyone intentionally misled the investigation.

Rader, Buntin's attorney, testified on the first day that she communicated with Broyles by e-mail, phone, and inquiry, but Rader chose not to bring it to the judge's attention.

"I didn't consider going to (Judge) Hawkins as advisable. I didn't want to cause friction between them, didn't want to get her in trouble, didn't want to raise Cain, didn't want to jeopardize Buntin's position," Rader said.

She testified that she has agreed to a public reprimand in her own disciplinary action, which was for failing to communicate with Buntin during the court delays. She's also reached an undisclosed settlement in a civil suit that Buntin filed against her, she testified.

Buntin's suit against the Marion County clerk and Judge Hawkins' court remains pending.

While it remains unclear exactly how the delays happened, both the judicial officers have taken responsibility for the Buntin case delays and how the court handled the issue.

Just days before the judicial misconduct hearing was to begin, the commission reached an agreement with Broyles in the action against her and the Indiana Supreme Court accepted that discipline Oct. 10. She voluntarily resigned in April, has been permanently banned from the bench, including pro tempore service, and is being publicly reprimanded.

In issuing its order, the court noted that she's shown consistent remorse for the events and takes responsibility for her actions and inactions. The court wrote, "a public reprimand adequately sanctions her for the admissions made as part of this agreement .... (it) remains on her record and is of great personal consequence for her as it would any attorney or judicial officer that considers their reputations to be their largest asset. "All justices agreed except Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who found the sanction to be inadequate.

During testimony at Judge Hawkins' hearing, Broyles said she regrets the delays and what happened, saying she agonized and stressed about this case and how to best respond to it - even during the delay that came after she took the case under advisement in April 2005.

"I was the cause .... I did not handle this well," the former commissioner testified, noting that she should have pressed for updates from all parties and moved the case more quickly. "Of my many regrets on this whole matter ... that was my biggest one. I take full responsibility for that."

Broyles said she had no reason to think the judge had misled anyone on the matter and said she's never heard him accused of dishonesty, and some of the judge's colleagues and attorneys practicing before him defended his integrity.

However, Broyles testified that just prior to leaving the bench this spring, a check with court administration showed that Criminal Court 5 continued to have too many PCR cases open, an issue that testimony indicated may have been caused by staff not correctly closing files.

Judge Hawkins said he greatly regrets what happened and has vowed to make sure the process is more closely monitored and scrutinized in his courtroom. Drastic changes have already been implemented, he said.

"You have a system in place you think is working well, and you don't know it isn't working well until someone brings it to your attention," he told the masters' panel. "Mistakes happen to the best of us. I've always wanted to be the best of us, and until Buntin came along, I didn't fully realize the limitations we have." •
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT