ILNews

IBA: Changes in Marion Superior Court Assignments

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Changes in Marion Superior Court Bench Assignments Judge Barbara Crawford recently began service as the newest judge on the Marion Superior Court. Appointed to fill the vacancy created by the departure of Judge Tanya Walton Pratt to the United States District Court, Judge Crawford assumed the bench in Criminal Court 21 -Protective Order Court on August 16.
 

Crawford-Barbara-mug Crawford

Judge Bob Altice said of Judge Crawford, “Barbara is a very intelligent, compassionate and hardworking person. She has a wonderful demeanor that will serve her well on the bench. We are all very excited that she is a member of the Marion Superior Court.”

Judge Crawford takes the bench in Criminal Court 21 as Judge David Certo moves to Community Court. Judge Certo requested the change in court.
 

Cedrto-David-mug Certo

“I considered my time in Court 21 a great and humbling privilege, especially the opportunity to help people in emergencies.  I deeply admire the legal and lay advocates who give so much to families in crisis.  We accomplished a great deal in Court 21, and I feel confident entrusting our important work to Judge Crawford,” said Judge Certo. “Moving to Community and Environmental Court gives me a new opportunity to improve the quality of life in our city, particularly in neighborhoods that are redeveloping and reviving our urban core.  I live in the Community Court catchment area, and I’m excited to revisit my first professional experiences in environmental law.”

A public robing ceremony will be held for Judge Crawford on Monday, August 27 at 3 p.m. in the Public Assembly Room of the City County Building.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT