ILNews

Judicial candidate barred from office for 5 years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The attorney who made statements regarding Franklin Circuit Judge Steven Cox’s release of a prisoner during the time she was challenging him for his spot on the bench last fall cannot seek judicial office for five years, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The justices also publicly reprimanded Tammy R. Davis of Brookville.

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed seven disciplinary charges against Davis, alleging she made statements she knew were inaccurate about Cox’s modification of a sentence that led to the release of David Ison to probation in 2010. Ison was recently convicted and sentenced for the September 2011 murders of five people. He also committed armed robbery in Ohio in February 2011.

Three examples of Davis’ conduct warranted her discipline. The ICJQ said Davis left voters with the mistaken impression that Ison would still have been in jail and couldn’t have committed certain crimes, that Cox and Ison are friends, and that Cox “worked for (Ison) for free.”

The commission told Davis in August 2012 that an ethical complaint had been lodged against her because of her campaign statements and that she should publicly retract the misinformation. Davis instead continued to post to her campaign website implying that Ison would have been in jail and not committed the Ohio crime if Cox hadn’t modified his sentence.

Davis and the ICJQ entered into an agreement in April regarding what her discipline should be, as the parties agreed Davis violated Rule 4.2(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The justices accepted the settlement agreement and dismissed counts 1, 4 and 7 of the complaint. Davis may not seek judicial office until after May 7, 2018, and she is publicly reprimanded for her conduct.

The order also allowed the commission to replace its original Count 2 with an amended Count 2. The costs of the proceedings are assessed against Davis.

 

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT