ILNews

Justices order new trial based on traffic judge's conduct

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has set the stage for a judicial disciplinary action against a Marion County Traffic Court judge for his courtroom conduct on a speeding and suspended license case last year.

In a three-page per curiam opinion Thursday in Christian Hollinsworth v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1006-CR-286, the state justices reversed a woman's misdemeanor conviction for driving with a suspended license and remanded her case for a new trial. Justices wrote a carefully crafted ruling that sticks to procedural points but highlights bias displayed and inappropriate behavior by Marion Superior Judge William E. Young during plea negotiations and during a bench trial and sentencing.

Police pulled Hollinsworth over in August 2007 after radar showed she was traveling 66 mph in a 45-mph construction zone along westbound Interstate 70. The officer checking her information discovered her license had been suspended, and issued a citation for speeding and for driving with a suspended license - both misdemeanors she was later charged with. She failed to appear at her first court hearing, but later entered a preliminary not guilty plea before a bench trial started in February 2009.

Just before the trial started, her attorney asked for a brief recess to "sign off" on a plea agreement but no agreement was reached. The lawyer asked for a continuance, and Judge Young denied that and then wouldn't allow a plea after she informed the court she would accept one and didn't want to proceed to trial.

Court records show that Judge Young "exhibited impatience" during trial by citing the time and his "full afternoon" docket when talking to Hollingworth about a plea agreement, then told her, "I don't know if I want to take your plea. I'd rather just go to trial, I think. I don't like being jerked around at all, all right?" At sentencing, Judge Young noted that Hollingworth had other pending charges on theft and battery and her attorney said those were alleged charges, to which the judge responded, "Sure they are."

Hollingworth received a year in county jail and her driving privileges were suspended for an additional 365 days. The judge also found her to be indigent, and didn't impose any additional fines or penalties on the speeding conviction. The Court of Appeals in November issued a not for publication ruling on her suspended license appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. Judges Elaine Brown and Melissa May determined the trial judge hadn't abused his discretion in denying the plea and his statements didn't amount to fundamental error, but wrote in a footnote that they didn't condone Judge Young's comments. Judge Terry Crone dissented after finding the judge had demonstrated the appearance of partiality and denied her a fair trial, and that meant he would reverse the conviction for a new trial.

Granting transfer, the Supreme Court agreed with that and found Hollingworth deserved a new trial on the misdemeanor conviction. Justices cited Indiana Judicial Conduct Canon 2, which requires a judge "to perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently;" they also cited Rule 2.2's comment 1, Rule 2.3(A), and Rule 2.8(A) - which respectively require the jurists act "without bias or prejudice," that the judges "be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants," and that a judge disqualify himself or herself if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

"The trial court's behavior in this case did not meet these standards," the justices' ruling says, vacating the intermediate appellate order and sending it back to the Marion County judge for a new trial.

Justice Theodore Boehm agreed with the majority on the merits of the case, but wrote that he would have denied transfer because the executed sentence in this case has already expired.

While the ruling indicates that Judge Young fell short of meeting the judicial conduct standards, it doesn't go into any potential disciplinary matters. That would be up to the Judicial Qualifications Commission to explore; those investigations are confidential until a verified complaint is filed or until the commission issues an admonishment or turns an action over to the Supreme Court for possible disciplinary action. The appellate court docket does not show any misconduct actions filed concerning Judge Young.

This is not the first case where Judge Young's conduct has raised questions. His traffic court practices have been the subject of a separate state suit that got transferred to federal court last year but is now back in that county court. In May, the Supreme Court appointed Morgan Circuit Judge Matthew Hansen as special judge in the case of Toshinao Ishii, et. al. v. Marion Superior 13, the Hon. William E. Young, Judge, and the City of Indianapolis, No. 49D11-0912-PL-55538, which is a class action complaint seeking to end the policies put in place by Judge Young since he took the traffic court bench in January 2009. The suit accuses the judge of instituting fine and access policies that undermine confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality, and are highly prejudicial to litigants.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT