ILNews

Commission recommends removing embattled judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion Superior Judge Kimberly Brown should be removed from office, the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission recommends in findings of fact compiled after the weeklong hearing of a 47-count complaint that concluded Nov. 10.

Removal is warranted, the commission argues, given “the depth and breadth of misconduct in this matter, as well as Judge Kimberly Brown’s actions during the course of the investigation and proceedings.”

The commission focused from the beginning on Brown’s refusal to take an oath at a deposition in her disciplinary case. Commission attorneys said that defiance was emblematic of the counts against her.

The charges against Brown include at least nine counts related to wrongful detention of criminal defendants in the Marion County Jail – one for 22 days. She also is accused of failing to properly oversee her court, improperly supervising trials, failing to act on Court of Appeals orders, showing hostility toward parties who came before her, and retaliating against court staff who complained, among other things.

The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered on the case docket Monday. The three-judge panel of special masters appointed to hear Brown’s case is acting on an expedited basis and must report to the Indiana Supreme Court by Dec. 30.

Brown’s attorneys on Nov. 25 requested an extension of time to file proposed findings, but there has been no further action on that request. Brown presides in Marion Superior Criminal Court 7 which hears a docket of mainly misdemeanor and Class D felony domestic violence cases.

“Judge Kimberly Brown has not demonstrated that she possesses the appropriate demeanor, competence, or knowledge to be a judicial officer,” the JQC argues. “She has not shown true remorse for her misconduct or provided any indication that she believes she must change her conduct in the future.”

The special masters, retired Monroe Circuit Judge Viola Taliaferro, Boone Superior Judge Rebecca S. McClure and Lake Superior Judge Sheila M. Moss, heard seven days of testimony regarding the counts against Brown.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Is there a statistician in the house?
    What are the odds of this happening on a random draw ..... all females running the state operation: "before a panel of three special masters appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court: retired Monroe Circuit Judge Viola Taliaferro, Boone Superior Judge Rebecca S. McClure and Lake Superior Judge Sheila M. Moss. Judicial Qualifications Commission attorney Adrienne Meiring" NOW, I thought gender did not matter? Does it?

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT