Judge's acknowledgement is refreshing

November 2, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Here’s something you don’t see every day: a public official acknowledging a mistake and even alerting the news media about the mess up.

Late yesterday we received an e-mail, which was also sent to several other news organizations, from Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes. It seemed innocent enough, titled “Press release” and a photo was attached. His e-mail gave no indication that the release was about his recent arrest for drunk driving.

Judge Hughes alerted the media of his arrest in North Carolina last week for driving while impaired and driving left of center. The judge was vacationing at the Outer Banks.

Perhaps he was advised to tell the media before it got out some other way. He even provided the case number, when his initial court appearance will be, and what law firms he’s hired to represent him. Judge Hughes has also alerted Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission of his arrest.

I was very surprised to see him divulge so much information to the media unsolicited. Most of the time, public officials try to sweep these kinds of incidents under the rug, or they don’t as freely offer up their arrest and case number.

What was his motivation in doing so? Was it so he’d get less of a punishment or gain public credibility for owning up to his mistakes?

It’s embarrassing and possibly career-damaging to be arrested for drunk driving. I found it refreshing for someone in the public eye to acknowledge the arrest and not shy away from it, even if he won’t make any more statements regarding the arrest right now.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • It is called covering your A$$
    I guess it is one way to describe a PR coverup and spin.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT