ILNews

Judge argues for suspension, not removal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior judge who's been suspended from the bench pending a final decision from the Indiana Supreme Court believes his penalty should fall somewhere between a public reprimand and removal.

In a 41-page review petition and 37-page support brief filed Dec. 11, Indianapolis attorney Kevin McGoff - who is representing Judge Grant W. Hawkins - explains why the judge shouldn't be removed from the Criminal Court 5 post he's held since January 2001.

The Indiana Supreme Court's Commission on Judicial Qualifications charged Judge Hawkins in April with misconduct, largely tied to case delays that resulted in Harold Buntin spending nearly two years in prison after DNA evidence cleared him of a rape. A three-master panel has recommended his removal from the bench and the commission agreed; the judge since has been suspended from the bench without pay until the Indiana Supreme Court decides his fate.

His former commissioner, Nancy Broyles, who handled the Buntin post-conviction case and was charged with similar counts, has since resigned and been permanently banned from any future judicial post as a result of the action against her.

Instead of removal, Judge Hawkins is asking that the Supreme Court consider a suspension with pay.

Multiple reasons exist as to why the judge shouldn't be removed, his petition and brief state, including: Buntin was in fact not innocent of the crime and that's been inaccurately portrayed to the public; the judge's stellar reputation in the legal community; that no finding was made that he deliberately deceived or misled anyone during the investigation; that many others with hands in the system played a part in this situation; and that the judge has made numerous court modifications that include creating a file database and increasing staff training and communication to prevent similar delays from happening again.

"Mistakes are made in human endeavor at every level and there is no immunity from the human fallibility that one will make mistakes," the response brief says. "When a public servant makes a mistake, it does not demand that one lose his or her job. This is not and should not be the standard in the field of judicial discipline."

His review petition notes that Judge Hawkins did make mistakes in supervising staff and his commissioner, but it also points out that examples have been found throughout Indiana where courts have let people out of jail too early or kept them too long because of similar errors.

"The goal should be to identify mistakes and correct them, not to unduly punish an honest and hardworking jurist when errors occur," the petition says. "There is always room for improvement in our system."

McGoff argues in the brief that the Supreme Court should not rely on a past judicial disciplinary case of Matter of Kouros, 816 N.E.2d 21 (Ind. 2004), which resulted in the twice-suspended Lake Superior Judge Joan Kouros being removed permanently for creating a backlog of cases and failing to even provide accurate information allowing for adequate outside monitoring. Kouros had a history of mismanagement and disciplinary actions against her prior to the removal decision, Judge Hawkins argues in the brief. That didn't happen in this Marion County case.

Instead, the Supreme Court should use Matter of Newman, 858 N.E.2d 632 (Ind. 2006), as guidance because it's more in line with what happened in this case, the brief says. In Newman, Madison Superior Judge Thomas Newman Jr. received a public reprimand resulting from administrative disorganization and inaction. He'd failed to send an order to the Department of Correction after the appellate court overturned a decision that a defendant had violated parole and needed to serve the remainder of a sentence. That man served more than a year before learning about his appellate win.

The similarity of the facts in both Newman and Hawkins suggests the appropriate sanction for Judge Hawkins should be more in line with that previous case, the brief states. Although Judge Hawkins didn't reach an agreement with the Judicial Qualifications Commission as Judge Newman had, and that likely means more than a public reprimand, the two penalties shouldn't be so dramatically different, the brief says.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT