ILNews

City court judge accused of theft, suspended

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Knox County City Court judge was suspended today following the filing of five theft charges against the judge Tuesday. The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed the "Notice of Criminal Charges and Request for Suspension," No. 42S00-0910-JD-441, with the Indiana Supreme Court after learning of the charges.

The Supreme Court suspended non-attorney Bicknell City Court Judge David Andrew Moreland with pay effective today pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 25(V)(A). The suspension continues until further order from the high court.

The Knox County prosecutor filed the five Class D felony theft charges against Judge Moreland alleging he stole more than $21,000 since taking the bench Jan. 1, 2008. The judge is accused of knowingly exerting unauthorized control over cash payments that resolved failures to appear and restore drivers' licenses, payments for infraction tickets written by the Bicknell Police Department but not recorded with the city court, and cashed checks from the Bicknell City Court without authorization. His wife, Cindy, is also facing five felony theft charges; she is the clerk of the court.

The alleged theft was discovered in August after John Bennington of the Indiana State Board of Accounts began auditing records from Jan. 1, 2008 to mid-2009 and found discrepancies. Bennington believes the missing money can be channeled to the judge and his wife, according to the probable cause affidavit. Judge Moreland was the only one with a key to a lock box that contained the money, receipts, and citations ordered, and he was responsible for posting the receipts into the city's cash book.

According to the Indiana State Police probable cause affidavit, Judge Moreland said he never stole any money but admitted he had taken some money with the intention of paying it back. He said the money wasn't for gambling or drugs, but he used it because he was about to lose his house, and had unpaid medical and credit card bills, but he was vague about his mortgage and bills. He would take the money before he made a receipt.

In the affidavit, Judge Mooreland admitted to writing at least one of the checks for his house payments, and his wife wrote the others. Cindy was also vague about the missing money but also claimed they intended to pay it back.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT