ILNews

Investigation goes beyond one case of delay

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Harold D. Buntin is a focal point of the judicial misconduct investigation into a Marion Superior Court judge and his part-time commissioner, but the Indianapolis man could be just the tip of the iceberg for what's been happening in that criminal court.

The nearly dozen charges brought separately Wednesday against Marion Superior Judge Grant W. Hawkins and Master Commissioner Nancy L. Broyles, both assigned to Criminal Court 5 since January 2001, not only deal with a single case of possible wrongdoing but that the problem may go much deeper, an investigation shows.

Filing two separate notices shortly before 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission "allege delay and dereliction of their duties as the judicial officers responsible for ... Buntin's post-conviction case and as the judicial officers responsible for providing reliable and timely information about the court's delay in the Buntin case."

The investigation findings show Commissioner Broyles has a history of past delays lasting as long as 28 months and ended with backdated rulings, some involving missing or "prematurely archived" files.

Reached by telephone this morning, Judge Hawkins said he'd known charges were coming but wasn't aware they'd been filed; he wanted to review them before commenting.

His attorney, Kevin McGoff with Bingham McHale, hadn't spoken to the judge by early afternoon.

"He's cooperated with the commission since this was first brought to his attention, and we'll continue to do so," McGoff said. "There's a procedure in place to have these charges resolved, and we'll work through that process. It's best to leave it at that."

Commissioner Broyles did not immediately respond to telephone messages from Indiana Lawyer, and her counsel could also not be reached by early afternoon to speak about the allegations.

Mostly, the 11 counts against the judge and 10 against the commissioner deal with their involvement in Buntin's post-conviction case, and alleged delays and dereliction of duty between April 2005 and March 2007 that led to Buntin remaining in prison for nearly two years after DNA results cleared him of a 1984 rape.

The charges allege that Judge Hawkins did not adequately supervise his staff and commissioner, committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and did not uphold the integrity and public confidence of the judiciary by allowing the delays in at least one case. One count accuses the judge of violating canons specifically by "creating the false impression to the Commission during its investigation that the post-it note contained evidence of a May 20, 2005 order having been prepared." Charges are similar against Commissioner Broyles.

But within the 11-pages of background and charges against each one, details from the commission's investigation reveal that up until March 2007, the part-time commissioner "routinely issued final orders in post-conviction cases without obtaining Judge Hawkins' approval and signature, contrary to Indiana Codes 33-33-49-16 and 33-23-5-8."

A full copy of the charges against Judge Hawkins can be found here and Commissioner Broyles can be found here.

The charges stem from Buntin's post-conviction proceedings that he initiated a decade ago. At age 17 in 1986, Buntin had been convicted in absentia of robbery and rape of a 22-year-old clerk at an Indianapolis cleaner, and he began serving a 50-year sentence in the Indiana Department of Corrections in 1994 after being extradited from Florida. He 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. Commissioner Broyles was assigned his post-conviction hearing that March, the investigation shows. She took it under advisement in April 2005.

The case came to light after Buntin received no word from his 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.

After the commission got involved, Judge Hawkins and Commissioner Broyles eventually issued an order March 8, 2007, backdating it to May 2005. The wrongly imprisoned man was released April 20, 2007, after the commission asked why no immediate action had been taken and Buntin had again written to the court about his release.

In explaining the two-year delay, both the judge and commissioner filed a notice that blamed a court or clerk's employee for neglecting to process the order as Commissioner Broyles said she'd instructed on a Post-It note attached to the order, the charges state.

Commissioner Broyles told the commission initially during the investigation that she had issued an order three days after taking it under advisement in April 2005, despite evidence that she'd told Buntin's attorney she intended to work on the case and asked for more information after that date. When the commission notified the judge and commissioner in January 2008 that they were amending the investigation focus to include not only delays and neglect but also the possibility that they'd given false impressions about what happened, Commissioner Broyles later advised members that she may have actually issued the order in 2006 but neglected to remove the 2005 date from a proposed order submitted by Buntin's attorney.

The disciplinary notices say both were unable to explain some of the delays, with the investigation including e-mails and court records that conflict with what the two indicated had happened.

Also included in the investigation is a point about what happened after the issue came to light and Judge Hawkins and Commissioner Broyles issued the backdated order.

But even after they knew - or should have known - about the delays and that Buntin's release should have been ordered previously, neither Judge Hawkins nor Commissioner Broyles took action to mandate his release until more than a month after the March 2007 order's effective date, the investigation pointed out.

Buntin filed a wrongful detention lawsuit against Criminal Court 5 in January, and that case is ongoing in Marion Superior 13; the Indiana Supreme Court appointed Hamilton Superior Judge Daniel Pfleging in February as a special judge on the case after Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid recused herself. Buntin also filed a suit in August 2007 against his trial attorney, Rader, and the county clerk's office said it remains open in Marion Superior 5.

Rader didn't return a phone message today from Indiana Lawyer.

Each has an opportunity to respond in writing to charges within 20 days, though that isn't required. The Judicial Commission wants the Indiana Supreme Court to appoint three masters to conduct a public hearing on the charge that Judge Hawkins and Commissioner Broyles committed judicial misconduct as alleged before deciding what, if any, sanctions should be imposed. The disciplinary action, which could take several months to resolve, could result in punishment ranging from reprimand to suspension without pay to removal from office.
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. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT