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. 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