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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT