ILNews

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.

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT