ILNews

Judicial candidate barred from office for 5 years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The attorney who made statements regarding Franklin Circuit Judge Steven Cox’s release of a prisoner during the time she was challenging him for his spot on the bench last fall cannot seek judicial office for five years, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The justices also publicly reprimanded Tammy R. Davis of Brookville.

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed seven disciplinary charges against Davis, alleging she made statements she knew were inaccurate about Cox’s modification of a sentence that led to the release of David Ison to probation in 2010. Ison was recently convicted and sentenced for the September 2011 murders of five people. He also committed armed robbery in Ohio in February 2011.

Three examples of Davis’ conduct warranted her discipline. The ICJQ said Davis left voters with the mistaken impression that Ison would still have been in jail and couldn’t have committed certain crimes, that Cox and Ison are friends, and that Cox “worked for (Ison) for free.”

The commission told Davis in August 2012 that an ethical complaint had been lodged against her because of her campaign statements and that she should publicly retract the misinformation. Davis instead continued to post to her campaign website implying that Ison would have been in jail and not committed the Ohio crime if Cox hadn’t modified his sentence.

Davis and the ICJQ entered into an agreement in April regarding what her discipline should be, as the parties agreed Davis violated Rule 4.2(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The justices accepted the settlement agreement and dismissed counts 1, 4 and 7 of the complaint. Davis may not seek judicial office until after May 7, 2018, and she is publicly reprimanded for her conduct.

The order also allowed the commission to replace its original Count 2 with an amended Count 2. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against Davis.

 

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT