Another judge in trouble

July 22, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Allen Circuit Court Judge Thomas Felts was arrested for suspicion of drunk driving while in Indianapolis last Friday. Judge Felts told Indiana Lawyer he regrets what’s happened.

Judges getting arrested and breaking the law isn’t anything new. Judges are human, just like the rest of us. However, after working intimately with the law day after day, knowing the consequences of drunk driving, you would think they would be even more acutely aware of their actions that break the law.

He isn’t the first one to be charged with drunk driving or public intoxication. Carroll Circuit Judge Donald Currie received a public admonition following his 2007 arrest for public intoxication.Marion Superior Judge John F. Hanley was arrested in December 2006 in Indianapolis for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration equivalent to at least .15 gram of alcohol and later pleaded guilty to the charge. Another Marion Superior judge, Hon. Israel Nunez Cruz, was arrested in Hendricks County in June 2006 and charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Both received public reprimands.

What’s going through the minds of attorneys and judges when they get into trouble with the law? What does this do to the reputation of judges charged and/or convicted of crimes? Judge Felts is up for re-election this November. Will the general public hold this against him and other judges who have gotten into legal trouble, or will voters even remember when election time rolls around?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://judgefeltsplaysnelson.blogspot.com/

    Boo Hoo for Judge Felts.
    Give me a break Judge Nelson

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
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT