Marion Superior courts, prosecutor's office see assignment changes

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County has a new judge, and that’s created the latest round of musical chairs for the Superior Court and prosecutor’s office.

On Aug. 2, Gov. Mitch Daniels appointed the replacement for former Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana. Of nine people applying for the post, he selected Barbara L. Cook Crawford from the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office.

The governor had to name a Democrat because Judge Pratt is one, and it’s required to balance the county’s Superior Court system evenly between the two parties. Also applying for the judgeship were: Mark D. Batties III, a Marion Superior master commissioner; Greg Bowes, Marion County assessor who was a Democratic candidate for county prosecutor earlier this year; John J. Boyce, Marion Superior commissioner; Shatrese M. Flowers, Marion Superior commissioner; Bruce A. Hugon, partner at Stuart & Branigin; Jeffrey L. Marchal, Marion Superior commissioner; Victoria M. Ransberger, Marion Superior magistrate; and William K. Teeguardan, retired administrative law judge now working for the state.

Crawford Barbara Cook Crawford became the newest Marion Superior judge Aug. 3. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Crawford has worked for most of the past two decades in the prosecutor’s office and had served as screening chief. The Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis graduate has also worked in the Office of the Indiana Attorney General and Marion County Public Defender’s Office, as well as being an adjunct professor of trial advocacy at her alma mater since 1998.

Marion Superior Judge Robert Altice, presiding judge of the executive committee, described his new judicial colleague as an excellent choice from a list of very qualified candidates. He said Crawford “is very intelligent, compassionate, and has a tremendous demeanor which will serve her well as a judge.”

Starting Aug. 3, Judge Crawford said this was the first time she’s served in a judicial role.

“This is a whole new experience, and it’s really stimulating,” she said. “It’s amazing how, despite being involved with our court system for some time, this is a new area and a new way of thinking for me. This is a challenge I’m really looking forward to.”

She replaces Judge David Certo in Superior 21, which is protective order court. Following Judge Crawford’s appointment, the Executive Committee on Aug. 6 agreed to move Judge Certo to community/environmental court – largely based on his background in that area and his experience that includes working as counsel for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Judge Certo replaced Judge Michael Keele, who’d gone to Civil 7 on the heels of Judge Gerald Zore taking over Probate Court once Judge Pratt moved to the federal bench.

With Judge Crawford’s appointment, the prosecutor’s office also is experiencing changes. Deputy prosecutor Barbara Trathen from homicide took over as screening supervisor while other supervisors and deputy prosecutors shifted their roles.

Even though the dominos have finished falling as a result of Judge Pratt’s move to the federal bench, more changes could be possible for the Superior Court in the coming months. Judge Altice said several of the 52 applicants for a federal magistrate opening in the Southern District of Indiana come from the county’s courts, and the District is also waiting to hear if a new magistrate position will be created next month – meaning another chance for shifts to occur. In addition to those potential changes, Judge Robyn Moberly from Civil 5 is one of three finalists the governor is considering for the Indiana Supreme Court. If she’s selected as the next justice, that would mean another opening.•


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?