ILNews

Commission wants judge suspended now

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission agrees with a three-masters panel that a Marion Superior judge should be removed from the bench but wants him immediately suspended while the Indiana Supreme Court considers his final punishment.

A two-page recommendation and 18-page memorandum of support came from the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications Friday, a response to a recommendation from a masters panel Nov. 7. That 70-page decision found Marion Superior Judge Grant Hawkins violated canons and committed 10 counts of judicial misconduct relating to how he supervised his court, and that the appropriate sanction should be removal.

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission filed charges in April accusing him and former Commissioner Nancy Broyles of misconduct, which in large part led to a pattern of case delays and one that resulted in wrongfully convicted Harold Buntin being kept in prison almost two years after DNA cleared him of a crime. She has since resigned and been permanently banned from the bench. The panel conducted a two-day hearing for the judge in early October.

Charges are that he didn't adequately supervise his staff and the commissioner, and that the lack of supervision led to a pattern of delays, including Buntin's. The masters acknowledged Judge Hawkins' apology and remorse. If it weren't for what resulted in the Buntin case, they said they normally would have recommended a suspension without pay because of how he generally handled the post-conviction relief issues.

In its response, the Judicial Qualifications Commission agreed with the panel in full and said an immediate suspension and subsequent removal is the only adequate solution.

"Ultimately, the Commission believes that Judge Hawkins' negligent and inexplicably casual approach to the Buntin case and the general operation of his court caused a significant loss of liberty to Mr. Buntin, numerous violations of procedural due process to other petitioners, and a general breakdown of the public's trust for countless others interested in the efficient operations of the criminal justice system," the memorandum says. "In balancing all the circumstances, the Commission concludes that the damage to the reputation and to the public's perception of Indiana's judiciary will be repaired only if Judge Hawkins is removed from office."

The Indiana Supreme Court will get the case to consider what penalty to issue after a procedural response period; Judge Hawkins is allowed 20 days to challenge the recommendations and then the commission has 10 days to respond from that. Justices aren't bound by any timeline once they receive the case for consideration.

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT