ILNews

Hamilton Superior judge arrested out-of-state for DWI

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes was arrested for drunk driving last week while vacationing in the Outer Banks of North Carolina.

The 55-year-old judge has been on the bench since 1988. He sent out a news release on Monday night about the incident. Judge Hughes was arrested at 5:45 p.m. Oct. 27 and charged with misdemeanor driving while impaired and a traffic infraction of driving left of center, according to his statement.
 

hughes-william-mug Hughes

Though the Currituck County Sheriff’s Office could not provide any information or forward a copy of the police report, an official with the Currituck County Clerk’s Office said a uniform citation document and police affidavit shows that Judge Hughes had a blood alcohol content of .13, nearly twice as high as the state’s legal limit of .08.

“It says on the affidavit that he traveled left of center twice, and turned his turn signal on a half of mile before the turn,” Currituck County Assistant Clerk of Courts Debbie Basnight said. The incident happened near North Carolina Highway 12 and Seabird Way in Corolla along the northern Outer Banks. An officer also reported a “light odor” of alcohol on the judge’s breath, but observed that he was polite and cooperative during the incident, according to Basnight. An automatic 30-day license revocation has also been implemented against Judge Hughes, she said.

The charges are pending in The General Court of Justice, District Court Division in Currituck County, N.C. The judge was released on an unsecured bond and the court docket shows his initial court appearance scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Jan. 24, 2011.

Judge Hughes has retained Teague & Glover in Elizabeth City, N.C., on the criminal charges, and attorney Danny Glover Jr. did not return a phone call from Indiana Lawyer today. Indianapolis attorneys Kevin McGoff and James Bell with Bingham McHale are representing Judge Hughes on the judicial discipline aspects.

“I apologize to my family, my friends, my colleagues and the general public for any embarrassment that my arrest has caused them,” Judge Hughes wrote in his statement, noting that he will not be making any more public comments about this pending matter.

Judge Hughes does not have any discipline history with the Indiana system. He has presided over many high-profile cases that most recently include the Carmel High School basketball hazing case, former money manager Marcus Schrenker’s case, as well as annexation and other cases that have gone as high as the Indiana Supreme Court. He was one of three finalists for the state’s Court of Appeals in 2007. the judge's current term is set to expire at the end of 2012.

On the morning of Oct. 28, Judge Hughes self-reported his out-of-state arrest to the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission. Generally, any disciplinary charges come once the criminal case is complete. The Indiana Supreme Court would make any final decision on discipline once that process concludes. In the past, other trial judges who’ve faced drunken-driving charges – including Marion Superior Judge John F. Hanley in 2007 and Allen Circuit Judge Thomas Felts in 2008 – have received public reprimands for similar conduct.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Really?
    I am shocked that comments of condemnation come from members of the bar. We complain about juries failing to honor the presumption of innocence. Yet some do the same thing here. Our knowledge of this judge is irrelevant. He is presumed innocent. Let's not simply pay lip service to the concept.
  • Equal b4 law
    Is not the judge entitled to apreumption of innocence like evevrybody else? Cut him some slack.
  • Think before you wish
    Jim, I understand your point. I don't know if this specific judge has been fair and reasonable or malicious in the past. Do you really want a judge who is perfect and white as the driven snow judging you. Such a judge may not understand what it means to be human. We don't want a perfect person affected with any degree of Asperger sitting on the bench. If anything, we need judges to be highly experienced, wise, been around the real world a time or two and be impaths.
  • Oust the Judge
    It is time to oust this guy from his position as judge. I wonder how many times he has sentenced others for even less blood alcohol content for DUI. This continues to be a trend of corruption and lack of sound and fair judgical purdance in Hamilton County, from the prosecuitors, lawyers, and the judges. But again justice here is not about what is right or wrong, fair or just, truth or deception, but all about how you "Play the Game" and spend the money.

    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
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

    2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

    3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

    4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

    5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

    ADVERTISEMENT