Committing crime in court

November 5, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If you’re going to court for a child custody hearing and you want to present yourself in the best light to the judge, don’t beat up your kid’s mom in the courtroom.



Owen Circuit Judge Frank Nardi overheard a commotion in his courtroom from his office last week and found a man beating up a woman. Mark Winders kicked and stomped on the woman before the judge intervened. They were left alone in the courtroom while Winders’ attorney went to his car to get a file before the hearing. That’s when Winders stood up and started kicking the woman in the torso and face.



After the attack, Winders told Judge Nardi that she deserved the beating.



How stupid can you be to attack the mother of your child in the courthouse before you’re supposed to appear for a child custody hearing? If the guy was there to fight for custody of his kid, it’s safe to say he lost.



Now he’s facing misdemeanor domestic battery and drug possession charges. There’s a chance the battery charge could increase to a felony, depending on how serious the woman’s injuries are.



How stupid can you be to attack the mother of your child in the courthouse before you’re supposed to appear for a child custody hearing? If the guy was there to fight for custody of his kid or paint himself as the more-fit parent, let’s hope it’s safe to say he lost.



Judge Nardi won’t be hearing the criminal case because of his involvement in breaking up the attack. Special Judge, G. Thomas Gray of Morgan Superior Court has been appointed. Circuit Court officials said they couldn’t tell me about the child custody case because it was a juvenile case; a search on Odyssey doesn’t turn up the case. I’d assume that Judge Nardi would recuse himself from that case and a special judge would be appointed.

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
  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