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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT