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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT