Disciplinary case ends for 1, continues for judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County commissioner has resolved the judicial disciplinary action against her, though a similar case against her supervising judge proceeded today with the start of a two-day hearing.

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission in April filed nearly two dozen charges against Commissioner Nancy Broyles and Marion Superior Judge Grant Hawkins, alleging delay and dereliction of duties relating to the handling of various cases. Mostly, the counts dealt with Commissioner Broyles' involvement handling a post-conviction case that resulted in Indianapolis man Harold Buntin being held in prison for nearly two years after DNA evidence cleared him of a 1984 rape.

Late last week, a resolution came in the action against Commissioner Broyles, but details aren't yet available. One of her attorneys, James Voyles, confirmed a resolution has been filed but couldn't elaborate because nothing has been formalized and because the commissioner will testify at Judge Hawkins' hearing Tuesday.

Her case had been consolidated with the one against Judge Hawkins, who appeared today in the Indiana Supreme Court's courtroom for the disciplinary hearing before three judicial masters - Delaware Circuit Judge Marianne Vorhees, Lake Superior Judge Clarence Murray, and Elkhart Circuit Judge Terry Shewmaker.

Disciplinary commission attorney Adrienne Meiring described a disorganized and delay-ridden court where Judge Hawkins failed to provide adequate supervision, while defense attorney Kevin McGoff contended that the sitting judge wasn't personally responsible for actions he wasn't aware of and at no time misled the investigating commission or parties involved in the case.

"While this begins with Mr. Buntin's complaints (against the court), it doesn't end there," Meiring said. "This is not one simple mistake .... When it came to PCRs in Marion Superior 5, it was a court in complete disarray. Judge Hawkins' lack of supervision led to a culture of indifference."

Judicial Qualifications Commission attorney Meg Babcock, who withdrew as counsel in this case to testify, spoke about her initial investigation that led to the disciplinary charges. She couldn't at first determine the case status by the chronological summary and couldn't get access to the file because court staff said it was in an archive storage area.

McGoff admitted that while there was a breakdown in the communication system somewhere, it wasn't the judge's direct fault.

Buntin's attorney, Carolyn Rader, communicated with Commissioner Broyles by e-mail, phone, and inquiry, but chose not to bring it to the judge's attention, she testified.

At one point, four months after the case had been taken under advisement, Rader testified that Commissioner Broyles came to her in mid-2005 in another courtroom and said she needed to get started on work in the Buntin case. That didn't surprise Rader because of the commissioner's well-known delays in issuing rulings that meant attorneys frequently had to check cases to make sure everything was in order. Rader said she also didn't want to file a "lazy judge" motion because that would have created unwanted friction for the court and possibly her client, Buntin.

"I didn't consider going to (Judge) Hawkins as advisable. I didn't want to cause friction between them, didn't want to get her in trouble, didn't want to raise Cain, didn't want to jeopardize Buntin's position," she said.

The hearing is expected to last through Tuesday. A report is expected from the three-judge panel in the first week of November.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?