ILNews

COA: Judge should have recused himself

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with a defendant that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney should have filed a motion for change of judge. The sentencing judge had worked as a prosecutor in the early stages of the defendant’s case 10 years earlier.

In Paul L. Patterson v. State of Indiana, No. 09A02-0909-CR-849, Paul Patterson was arrested for selling cocaine in 1997 and charged with Class B felony dealing in cocaine. Judge Leo Burns, then a Cass County deputy prosecutor, signed the information charging Patterson and participated in the probable cause hearing. He didn’t participate any more in Patterson’s case. Just after a different prosecutor took over the case, Jay Hirschauer was appointed to represent Patterson. Patterson entered a guilty plea, but fled before sentencing. He was arrested in 2009 in Illinois.

When he appeared in Indiana, Judge Burns had become the judge of Cass Circuit Court. The state brought it to the judge’s attention that he had worked on the case years earlier, but he didn’t think it required his recusal. Without any objection from Patterson, the judge sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Even though Hirschauer didn’t start on Patterson’s case until after Judge Burns stopped working on it, the judge’s name appeared numerous times in the record, wrote Judge Margret Robb. And since Judge Burns hadn’t recused himself for his previous involvement in the case, as is required by Judicial Conduct Canon 2.11, Hirschauer should have filed the motion for a change of judge. Judge Burns would have then been obligated to remove himself from the case. Patterson was prejudiced because he was denied his right to have an impartial judge preside over his case.

The appellate court remanded to have the case assigned to a different judge. That judge may reject Patterson’s plea agreement and set the case for trial if he or she deems it appropriate.
 
 

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT