ILNews

Justices disagree on judge's penalty

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A suspended Marion Superior judge will be able to return to the bench after another 60 days off the bench, this time without pay.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued that decision late Wednesday afternoon, but in doing so expressed wide disagreement about the severity of the sanction. Two justices wanted a one-year suspension for Judge Grant W. Hawkins, while two others would have preferred a 30-day sentence.

Balancing the weight of the case against Judge Hawkins, his colleague's disagreement, and a three-judge panel's recommendation for removal, Justice Brent Dickson was the sole member of the court to say the ultimate 60-day suspension was the most appropriate penalty.

The order ends the disciplinary action In the matter of the Hon. Grant. W. Hawkins, No. 49S00-0804-JD-157, which has been ongoing since April 2008. The case came to light in early 2007 after it was learned a wrongfully convicted man sat in prison for nearly two years after DNA testing cleared him of a rape.

After an investigation, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed charges last year that Judge Hawkins' lack of court supervision resulted in case delays leading to the man's longer incarceration. The judge's former Commissioner Nancy Broyles was also charged at that time, but she resigned last year and has been permanently banned from the bench as a result of this case.

A three-judge panel and the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications recommended his removal last year after an October hearing, while Judge Hawkins pushed for a suspension with pay. Justices temporarily suspended him Nov. 25 but allowed him to continue earning his state-set $125,647 annual salary while they reached a final decision.

Effective today, the criminal judge who's been presiding over Criminal Division 5 starts this 60-day suspension.

"A suspension from office without pay, regardless of duration, is not a minor sanction," the per curiam opinion said. "Even more than a public reprimand, any such suspension is a significant blemish on a sitting judge's reputation."

Despite that resolution, though, only three judges were in the majority agreeing that this would be an adequate resolution.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan wanted a yearlong suspension without pay based on the serious nature of the case and a panel's recommendation for removal.

The chief justice wrote in his own dissent, "A suspension of (60) days is not an adequate sanction for a judge whose disorganization and indifference caused a man wrongly to sit in prison for two years.

"This is not a story of about an isolated error of omission, of which any of us can be guilty of from time to time," he wrote. "Rather, the evidence reflects a series of failures under circumstances that afforded many reminders and alerts. These did not avail because Judge Hawkins' office was a place where family phone calls went unheeded and letters went to the wastebasket."

He aligned with Justice Sullivan, who noted that while the wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly for good reason, this wasn't the case because the delay was entirely because Judge Hawkins didn't give the case adequate attention.

On the other hand, Justice Theodore Boehm wrote a dissenting opinion that Justice Robert D. Rucker concurred with - that they preferred a lesser penalty because the trial judge didn't intentionally do anything wrong and because he'd already been suspended for more than three months

"I believe that this record establishes that Judge Hawkins is guilty of nothing more than excessive reliance on others and failure to have good procedures to control the flow of cases," Justice Boehm wrote, describing a suspension without pay for more than a few weeks often is tantamount to a forced resignation. "In my view, a (30) day suspension is a very substantial sanction and the most that these facts warrant. I nonetheless agree that a suspension of (60) days is the proper disposition of this case, given that a majority favors a suspension for that period or longer."

Indianapolis attorney Kevin McGoff, who represented Judge Hawkins, said the judge is relieved to have this behind him and returning to the bench after this 60 days.

"This represents how the system works and that our justices operate independently and have their own opinions but can respectfully disagree and come to a resolution," he said. "I think that our courts have a healthy debate, and this is evidence of that."

More coverage of this case will be in the March 18-31, 2009, issue of Indiana Lawyer.

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

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. "Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya." If what I wrote below is too much social philosophy for Indiana attorneys, just take ten this vacay to watch The Lego Movie with kiddies and sing along where appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzMjoH0rJw

  2. I've got some free speech to share here about who is at work via the cat's paw of the ACLU stamping out Christian observances.... 2 Thessalonians chap 2: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

  3. Did someone not tell people who have access to the Chevy Volts that it has a gas engine and will run just like a normal car? The batteries give the Volt approximately a 40 mile range, but after that the gas engine will propel the vehicle either directly through the transmission like any other car, or gas engine recharges the batteries depending on the conditions.

  4. Catholic, Lutheran, even the Baptists nuzzling the wolf! http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-hhs-paid-baptist-children-family-services-182129786-four-months-housing-illegal-alien-children/ YET where is the Progressivist outcry? Silent. I wonder why?

  5. Thank you, Honorable Ladies, and thank you, TIL, for this interesting interview. The most interesting question was the last one, which drew the least response. Could it be that NFP stamps are a threat to the very foundation of our common law American legal tradition, a throwback to the continental system that facilitated differing standards of justice? A throwback to Star Chamber’s protection of the landed gentry? If TIL ever again interviews this same panel, I would recommend inviting one known for voicing socio-legal dissent for the masses, maybe Welch, maybe Ogden, maybe our own John Smith? As demographics shift and our social cohesion precipitously drops, a consistent judicial core will become more and more important so that Justice and Equal Protection and Due Process are yet guiding stars. If those stars fall from our collective social horizon (and can they be seen even now through the haze of NFP opinions?) then what glue other than more NFP decisions and TRO’s and executive orders -- all backed by more and more lethally armed praetorians – will prop up our government institutions? And if and when we do arrive at such an end … will any then dare call that tyranny? Or will the cost of such dissent be too high to justify?

ADVERTISEMENT