ILNews

Investigation goes beyond one case of delay

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Harold D. Buntin is a focal point of the judicial misconduct investigation into a Marion Superior Court judge and his part-time commissioner, but the Indianapolis man could be just the tip of the iceberg for what's been happening in that criminal court.

The nearly dozen charges brought separately Wednesday against Marion Superior Judge Grant W. Hawkins and Master Commissioner Nancy L. Broyles, both assigned to Criminal Court 5 since January 2001, not only deal with a single case of possible wrongdoing but that the problem may go much deeper, an investigation shows.

Filing two separate notices shortly before 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission "allege delay and dereliction of their duties as the judicial officers responsible for ... Buntin's post-conviction case and as the judicial officers responsible for providing reliable and timely information about the court's delay in the Buntin case."

The investigation findings show Commissioner Broyles has a history of past delays lasting as long as 28 months and ended with backdated rulings, some involving missing or "prematurely archived" files.

Reached by telephone this morning, Judge Hawkins said he'd known charges were coming but wasn't aware they'd been filed; he wanted to review them before commenting.

His attorney, Kevin McGoff with Bingham McHale, hadn't spoken to the judge by early afternoon.

"He's cooperated with the commission since this was first brought to his attention, and we'll continue to do so," McGoff said. "There's a procedure in place to have these charges resolved, and we'll work through that process. It's best to leave it at that."

Commissioner Broyles did not immediately respond to telephone messages from Indiana Lawyer, and her counsel could also not be reached by early afternoon to speak about the allegations.

Mostly, the 11 counts against the judge and 10 against the commissioner deal with their involvement in Buntin's post-conviction case, and alleged delays and dereliction of duty between April 2005 and March 2007 that led to Buntin remaining in prison for nearly two years after DNA results cleared him of a 1984 rape.

The charges allege that Judge Hawkins did not adequately supervise his staff and commissioner, committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and did not uphold the integrity and public confidence of the judiciary by allowing the delays in at least one case. One count accuses the judge of violating canons specifically by "creating the false impression to the Commission during its investigation that the post-it note contained evidence of a May 20, 2005 order having been prepared." Charges are similar against Commissioner Broyles.

But within the 11-pages of background and charges against each one, details from the commission's investigation reveal that up until March 2007, the part-time commissioner "routinely issued final orders in post-conviction cases without obtaining Judge Hawkins' approval and signature, contrary to Indiana Codes 33-33-49-16 and 33-23-5-8."

A full copy of the charges against Judge Hawkins can be found here and Commissioner Broyles can be found here.

The charges stem from Buntin's post-conviction proceedings that he initiated a decade ago. At age 17 in 1986, Buntin had been convicted in absentia of robbery and rape of a 22-year-old clerk at an Indianapolis cleaner, and he began serving a 50-year sentence in the Indiana Department of Corrections in 1994 after being extradited from Florida. He petitioned for relief in 1998 based on DNA evidence that wasn't available during his trial that he hoped would clear him; it eventually did in 2005. Commissioner Broyles was assigned his post-conviction hearing that March, the investigation shows. She took it under advisement in April 2005.

The case came to light after Buntin received no word from his attorney, Carolyn Rader, or the court, despite his repeated attempts to get an answer. He contacted the commission to investigate the reason for the delay.

After the commission got involved, Judge Hawkins and Commissioner Broyles eventually issued an order March 8, 2007, backdating it to May 2005. The wrongly imprisoned man was released April 20, 2007, after the commission asked why no immediate action had been taken and Buntin had again written to the court about his release.

In explaining the two-year delay, both the judge and commissioner filed a notice that blamed a court or clerk's employee for neglecting to process the order as Commissioner Broyles said she'd instructed on a Post-It note attached to the order, the charges state.

Commissioner Broyles told the commission initially during the investigation that she had issued an order three days after taking it under advisement in April 2005, despite evidence that she'd told Buntin's attorney she intended to work on the case and asked for more information after that date. When the commission notified the judge and commissioner in January 2008 that they were amending the investigation focus to include not only delays and neglect but also the possibility that they'd given false impressions about what happened, Commissioner Broyles later advised members that she may have actually issued the order in 2006 but neglected to remove the 2005 date from a proposed order submitted by Buntin's attorney.

The disciplinary notices say both were unable to explain some of the delays, with the investigation including e-mails and court records that conflict with what the two indicated had happened.

Also included in the investigation is a point about what happened after the issue came to light and Judge Hawkins and Commissioner Broyles issued the backdated order.

But even after they knew - or should have known - about the delays and that Buntin's release should have been ordered previously, neither Judge Hawkins nor Commissioner Broyles took action to mandate his release until more than a month after the March 2007 order's effective date, the investigation pointed out.

Buntin filed a wrongful detention lawsuit against Criminal Court 5 in January, and that case is ongoing in Marion Superior 13; the Indiana Supreme Court appointed Hamilton Superior Judge Daniel Pfleging in February as a special judge on the case after Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid recused herself. Buntin also filed a suit in August 2007 against his trial attorney, Rader, and the county clerk's office said it remains open in Marion Superior 5.

Rader didn't return a phone message today from Indiana Lawyer.

Each has an opportunity to respond in writing to charges within 20 days, though that isn't required. The Judicial Commission wants the Indiana Supreme Court to appoint three masters to conduct a public hearing on the charge that Judge Hawkins and Commissioner Broyles committed judicial misconduct as alleged before deciding what, if any, sanctions should be imposed. The disciplinary action, which could take several months to resolve, could result in punishment ranging from reprimand to suspension without pay to removal from office.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT