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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT