Former Clark Drug Court judge among incumbents who lost in primary

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Clark County judge who ran a drug court that kept some participants jailed for months without due process lost the primary election to a New Albany attorney.

Democratic challenger Laura A. Harbison defeated incumbent Clark Circuit Court 2 Judge Jerry Jacobi Tuesday to be the Democrat on the ballot in November, based on unofficial results. Harbison was admitted to practice in 2009.

Jacobi oversaw the drug treatment court in Clark County, which has been suspended due to “allegations of unlawful conduct by drug court staff and drug court practices harmful to participants,” according to the Indiana Judicial Center. The court is no longer accepting new participants and current ones have been transferred to Clark Circuit 4 Judge Vicki Carmichael.

Several former drug court participants are suing Jacobi and other officials, alleging civil rights violations. The plaintiffs claim they were subjected to improper detentions, some lasting several months, and other alleged due process violations.

Jacobi’s colleague on the bench, Clark Circuit 1 Judge Daniel Moore, also lost in the primary to Democratic challenger Andrew Adams, a Jeffersonville attorney admitted in 2001.

Several other judges around the state were unseated in Tuesday’s primaries. Among them:

  • Tippecanoe Superior 4 Judge Gregory Donat was defeated by challenger Laura Zeman in the county’s Republican primary. Zeman, a Clinton County deputy prosecutor and former Tippecanoe Superior 5 judge, received 57 percent of the vote.  There was no Democratic primary in the race.
  • LaGrange Superior Judge George E. Brown was unseated in the Republican primary, falling to challenger Lisa M. Bowen-Slaven, who received almost 60 percent of the vote. Bowen-Slaven is vying to become the county’s first female judge.
  • Marion County Center Township Small Claims Court Judge Michelle Scott was defeated in the Democratic primary, unseated by Indianapolis solo practitioner Brenda Roper, who won 64 percent of the vote after receiving the endorsement of the Marion County Democratic Party. In November, Roper will face Republican Kevin Green, who ran unopposed in the Republican primary.

Two counties conducted primaries for newly established courts.

  • In Johnson County, Magistrate Judge Marla Clark won the Republican primary for the county’s new Superior Court 4. Clark defeated Deputy Prosecutor Joe Villanueva, winning 57 percent of the vote.
  • In Owen County, Republican voters chose Kelsey Hanlon by a nearly 2-1 margin over Terry English to be the first Circuit Court 2 judge in the Spencer courthouse.

Several counties held primary elections for pending judicial vacancies.

Central Indiana

  • In Boone County, attorney Bruce Petit won a close race against Jim Holden, earning just over 52 percent of the vote in the Republican primary for Boone Superior Court 2. Current Boone Superior 2 Judge Rebecca S. McClure is retiring at the end of the year.
  • In Hendricks County, Prosecutor Rhett M. Stuard bested two challengers to win the Republican primary for Circuit Judge 2, winning 42 percent of the vote over Paul A. Hadley and Herb D. Witham. Stuard seeks to replace retiring Superior 2 Judge David H. Coleman.
  • In Shelby County, Prosecutor R. Kent Apsley beat Andrew M. Eads in the Republican primary to succeed retiring Superior 1 Judge Jack Tandy. Apsley won almost 73 percent of the vote.
  • In Tippecanoe County, current Superior 5 Judge Les Meade defeated Lafayette attorney Earl McCoy in the Republican primary to succeed Donald L. Daniel, who is retiring as Tippecanoe Circuit judge. Meade won 53 percent of the vote. Winning the GOP primary for Meade’s former seat in Tippecanoe Superior 5 was Magistrate Judge Sean Persin, who garnered 53 percent of the vote against his challenger, Lafayette attorney Daniel Moore.
  • In Vigo County, Lakshmi (Lucky) Reddy won 58 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary against challenger John A. Kesler II in the race to succeed retiring Superior 2 Judge Philip Adler. Reddy will face Republican Christopher J. Dailey in the November election. Dailey ran unopposed in the GOP primary.

Northern Indiana

  • In Elkhart County, solo practitioner Teresa Cataldo prevailed in a four-candidate Republican primary contest to succeed retiring Judge George Biddlecome in Superior Court 3. Cataldo won nearly 33 percent of the vote, followed by David Francisco with 29 percent, Andrew M. Hicks with 22 percent and Fay Schwartz with 16 percent.
  • In Kosciusko County, attorney David C. Cates won a three-way race to succeed retiring Judge Duane Huffer in Kosciusko Superior Court 2. Cates received 44 percent of the vote against Chad Miner (30 percent) and Stephen P. Harris (25 percent).
  • In LaPorte County, Michigan City attorney Michael Bergerson won 64 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary against John Lake in his effort to succeed retiring Superior 1 Judge Kathleen Lang.

Southern Indiana

  • In Sullivan County, the Democratic primary is too close to call in a race to succeed Superior Judge Robert E. Springer. Attorney Hugh R. Hunt received 29 more votes than Magistrate Ann Smith Mischler out of 3,935 votes cast. The Sullivan County clerk’s office did not immediately indicate whether a recount would be sought.
  • In Warrick County, Newburgh attorney Todd Corne won 54 percent of the Republican primary vote in his race for Circuit Court judge against Greg Granger, an attorney with Bowers Harrison LLP in Evansville. Current Circuit Judge David Kelley did not seek re-election.



Post a comment to this story

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
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?