ILNews

Former commissioner testifies against judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former Marion County commissioner took the stand against the judge she once worked for, hinting at a pattern of disorganization in his courtroom. However, she took most of the blame for an almost two-year delay in releasing a man who had been cleared of rape charges.

Former Marion Superior Criminal 5 Commissioner Nancy Broyles - off the bench since her retirement in April - testified in the second of a two-day hearing regarding Marion Superior Judge Grant Hawkins, who now solely faces multiple misconduct charges for alleged dereliction of duty and delay. His hearing began Monday morning and stretched until 8 p.m.; the hearing started again today at 8 a.m. and is expected to last all day.

"To see innuendo after innuendo piled on, it's disheartening," Judge Hawkins said today on a break outside the Indiana Supreme Court's courtroom, where the hearing is being conducted. "Sure, there are blind spots and mistakes may have happened, but they're saying I misled ... I'm not that guy."

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission in April filed about a dozen charges against Broyles and Judge Hawkins, alleging delay and dereliction of duties relating to the handling of various cases. The counts against Broyles dealt with her involvement with 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 Broyles. She isn't practicing law since her retirement and will never again be able to sit as a judge in any matter, including pro tem work.

Broyles' attorneys, James Voyles and Jennifer Lukemeyer, sat near her as she testified this morning in front of a three-judge panel.

"I was the cause ... I did not handle this well," she testified.

With its witnesses so far, Disciplinary Commission attorney Adrienne Meiring described a disorganized and delay-ridden court that Judge Hawkins failed to adequately supervise.

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.

The nearly dozen witnesses called yesterday included court employees, Buntin and his sister, and Indianapolis attorney Carolyn Rader, who had originally represented Buntin on the post-conviction claim. Witnesses this morning included court staff, as well as Broyles and Judge Hawkins before a lunch break.

Broyles said she regrets the delays and what happened, saying she agonized and stressed about this case and how to best respond to it - even during the delay when she took it under advisement in 2005 and when the post-conviction relief notice came in March 2007. Buntin was released in April 2007.

In taking responsibility, Broyles said she didn't know the exact reasons for the delays, but she had no reason to think the judge had misled anyone on the matter.

"I've never known him to be dishonest; never had anyone accuse him of it," she said. "I can't speak more highly to his honesty than that."

She did indicate that just prior to leaving the bench this spring, a check with court administration showed that Criminal Court 5 continued to have too many PCR cases open, an issue that testimony indicated may have been caused by staff not correctly closing files.

Judge Hawkins spent about an hour prior to the lunch break discussing his educational and professional background, including time as chair of the Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission, as well as initial points about his court's operations and setup.

Character witnesses and more testimony from Judge Hawkins were expected this afternoon. Among those testifying were Indianapolis attorney Robert Hammerle.

The three judicial masters - Delaware Circuit Judge Marianne Vorhees, Lake Superior Judge Clarence Murray, and Elkhart Circuit Judge Terry Shewmaker - are presiding over the case and expected to issue a report during 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT