ILNews

Justices: Judge facing suspension may respond

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior judge facing suspension and a 45-count disciplinary complaint has until Wednesday to respond to the suspension request, the Indiana Supreme Court said in an order issued Friday.

Judge Kimberly Brown faces an array of accusations, including counts that her actions led to at least nine defendants wrongly spending one to 22 days in the Marion County Jail, and that she created “a hostile environment for attorneys, court staff, clerks, and other court officials.”

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission filed a verified petition for suspension Aug. 26 asking the Supreme Court to remove Brown from the bench pending proceedings on the complaint.

Friday, justices unanimously ordered that Brown respond to the suspension request by noon Wednesday.

“The Admission and Discipline Rules governing the procedure under which judicial disciplinary matters are adjudicated do not specify whether (Brown) has the right to file a response to a Verified Petition for Interim Suspension and, if so, the time period for doing so,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote for the court in setting the deadline.

Brown continued to hear cases on the bench as of Thursday, and did not respond to a message seeking comment. She is represented by Indianapolis attorney Aaron Haith of Choate & Haith. A firm representative responding to inquiries said Thursday there would be no immediate comment.

According to Friday’s order, no attorney had yet entered an appearance on Brown’s behalf in her disciplinary matter. Brown “is reminded that if she intends for counsel to file a response on her behalf to the Commission’s Verified Petition for Interim Suspension, then counsel must enter a valid appearance before or contemporaneously with the filing of her response,” Dickson wrote.  

Brown hears a docket of misdemeanor and Class D felony domestic battery cases in Marion Superior Criminal Court 7.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT