ILNews

City court judge resigns, banned from bench

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted the resignation from the bench of a suspended city court judge accused of theft. The judge is also permanently banned from judicial office.

Bicknell City Court Judge David A. Moreland and the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications tendered a conditional agreement in which the commission agreed to suspend its prosecution of the non-attorney judge and ask that the case be dismissed in exchange for Judge Moreland's resignation from office. The agreement also permanently bans him from judicial service, requires repayment of costs of the proceeding, and prevents him from making public statements misrepresenting the status of the investigation or terms of the agreement.

If Judge Moreland violates the terms of the agreement, the commission can re-file charges of ethical misconduct.

The commission filed charges against the judge in December 2009 after he was arrested for five counts of felony theft. Judge Moreland 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 was the clerk of the court at the time of the alleged theft.

The Supreme Court accepted the parties' agreement, finding further prosecution to be unnecessary because Judge Moreland could have likely faced removal from office, a ban on serving as a judicial officer, and the costs of the proceedings. Continuing the proceeding would be a waste of limited judicial resources, the justices concluded.

The resignation is effective immediately. The matter is dismissed without prejudice regarding the commission's right to re-file charges. Judge Moreland must send a resignation letter to Gov. Mitch Daniels.

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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT