ILNews

Court sanctions Allen County judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended Allen Superior Judge Kenneth R. Scheibenberger for three days without pay as part of an agreement to resolve a judicial misconduct action.

An 11-page order issued Thursday outlines the sanctions and the circumstances of the judge's actions nearly a year ago, and also offers insight into the court's rationale. All justices concurred with the penalty and that proceeding costs are to be assessed against the judge. The parties had agreed to the penalty beforehand.

A full opinion hasn't been issued, but the court will release one "in due course" that includes details such as when the suspension starts, the order says.

Judge Scheibenberger had been set for a full-day disciplinary hearing before three special masters on Nov. 26, but that now won't happen. He was accused in August of misconduct for his behavior Nov. 30, 2007, in a colleague's courtroom. He's accused of suspending his court and sitting in on a sentencing hearing while wearing his robe, then creating a disturbance with deputy prosecutors before verbally berating a defendant in front of that person's family.

According to the statement attached to the order and accepted by the court, the judge's son had died accidentally prior to the courtroom event and Judge Scheibenberger believed at the time that the defendant in that case had some tangential or indirect role in his son's drug use, which contributed to the death. While he didn't intend on any confrontation, the judge and all parties agreed his conduct was in violation of judicial canons.

The parties agreed that a significant mitigating factor in this action was that Judge Scheibenberger was reacting as a grieving parent, that he's accepted responsibility and is remorseful, and that he's "undertaken appropriate measures to address his grief."

However, the parties also agreed that an aggravating factor in this action is a public admonition Judge Scheibenberger received in 2002 for conduct related to a misdemeanor case involving his son. In that action, the judge obtained his son's file from an employee in the clerk's office and made an entry about an upcoming hearing in the case, which was being handled by a magistrate and was continued to allow more time to prepare.

The judge's Fort Wayne attorney, James Fenton, didn't return a phone call immediately this afternoon, and the judge also didn't immediately return a phone message left at his court.

In his late 50s, the judge has been on the bench since January 1992. He was admitted to the practice in October 1976.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT