ILNews

Judge must pay $10,000 in disciplinary fees

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The judge and former commissioner disciplined for their roles that led to a wrongfully convicted man staying in prison must pay nearly $18,000 in expenses related to their disciplinary proceedings. The Indiana Supreme Court issued the order Monday.

Marion Superior Judge Grant Hawkins must repay $10,552.20 in fees and expenses, while former commissioner Nancy Broyles is responsible for $7,405.21. The difference in amounts owed is because Broyles' cause concluded five months earlier than Hawkins' case.

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission filed charges against the two in April 2008, alleging delay and dereliction of duties relating to the handling of cases. The investigation also focused on Broyles' involvement in handling a post-conviction case that left a man in prison nearly two years after DNA evidence cleared him of rape.

The cause against Broyles ended in October 2008 after she was permanently banned from the bench. Judge Hawkins was temporarily suspended from the bench with pay in November 2008 and served a 60-day unpaid suspension from March through May of this year.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT