ILNews

Beech Grove City judge publicly admonished

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has publicly admonished Beech Grove City Court Judge Charles W. Hunter for comments he made last year to an Indianapolis television reporter.

The reporter was investigating a citizen complaint submitted to the station by Charity Bryan, who uses a wheelchair. Her husband received a ticket because the handicapped placard wasn’t readily visible in the car. Charity said it had fallen in the car’s interior the day they received the ticket. The Bryans contested the ticket, but Judge Hunter found the husband violated the ordinance and imposed a fine and court costs.

During a TV interview about the ticket, the reporter discovered Judge Hunter was parking in a handicapped spot but did not have a handicapped placard on display. The judge’s son then retrieved the placard and hung it up. When the reporter asked if this wasn’t a similar situation to the couple who receive the ticket, Judge Hunter said “I didn’t get a ticket, did I?” and responded in the affirmative to the reporter who asked “So, it’s just their bad luck for having gotten a ticket?”

In lieu of filing formal disciplinary proceedings, Judge Hunter consented to the public admonishment. He admits to violating Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to act at all times in a manner that promotes the public’s confidence in the judiciary and to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The commission members stress that Judge Hunter is admonished because of the injudicious nature of his public comments.

This ends the investigation by the commission and Judge Hunter will not be formally charged with ethical misconduct.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • traffic court judges
    Why should a traffic court or city court judge become more jaded than many other kinds of judges? Hearing the same kinds of matters, seeing the same or similar facial expressions,the same or similar body language, the same case cites, and the same arguments from counsel would make anybody jaded.
  • Crime = Bad Luck
    Some people do not get caught for the crimes they commit. It is "bad luck," but that is the nature of the beast. Too bad the reporter wasn't a law enforcement officer, and could have written a ticket right there. However, he wasn't and the world must go on. There must be something with those traffic court and city court judges - first Judge Young and now this. Must just happen when all day long all you here are ordinance violations...get a little jaded and mad at the world.

    "First thing we do, is kill all the lawyers."
    -Shakespeare

    (And yes, I am an attorney, but feel there are WAY too many of us out there...)
  • levitas
    lets hope the republic will survive this perplexing matter!
  • Bad decision
    What about the poor woman who still had to pay that fine and court costs even though she had a valid parking permit. A public admonishment only proves the public perception that people in his position feel they are above the law and not held accountable for their actions.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT