ILNews

Justices order new trial based on traffic judge's conduct

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has set the stage for a judicial disciplinary action against a Marion County Traffic Court judge for his courtroom conduct on a speeding and suspended license case last year.

In a three-page per curiam opinion Thursday in Christian Hollinsworth v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1006-CR-286, the state justices reversed a woman's misdemeanor conviction for driving with a suspended license and remanded her case for a new trial. Justices wrote a carefully crafted ruling that sticks to procedural points but highlights bias displayed and inappropriate behavior by Marion Superior Judge William E. Young during plea negotiations and during a bench trial and sentencing.

Police pulled Hollinsworth over in August 2007 after radar showed she was traveling 66 mph in a 45-mph construction zone along westbound Interstate 70. The officer checking her information discovered her license had been suspended, and issued a citation for speeding and for driving with a suspended license - both misdemeanors she was later charged with. She failed to appear at her first court hearing, but later entered a preliminary not guilty plea before a bench trial started in February 2009.

Just before the trial started, her attorney asked for a brief recess to "sign off" on a plea agreement but no agreement was reached. The lawyer asked for a continuance, and Judge Young denied that and then wouldn't allow a plea after she informed the court she would accept one and didn't want to proceed to trial.

Court records show that Judge Young "exhibited impatience" during trial by citing the time and his "full afternoon" docket when talking to Hollingworth about a plea agreement, then told her, "I don't know if I want to take your plea. I'd rather just go to trial, I think. I don't like being jerked around at all, all right?" At sentencing, Judge Young noted that Hollingworth had other pending charges on theft and battery and her attorney said those were alleged charges, to which the judge responded, "Sure they are."

Hollingworth received a year in county jail and her driving privileges were suspended for an additional 365 days. The judge also found her to be indigent, and didn't impose any additional fines or penalties on the speeding conviction. The Court of Appeals in November issued a not for publication ruling on her suspended license appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. Judges Elaine Brown and Melissa May determined the trial judge hadn't abused his discretion in denying the plea and his statements didn't amount to fundamental error, but wrote in a footnote that they didn't condone Judge Young's comments. Judge Terry Crone dissented after finding the judge had demonstrated the appearance of partiality and denied her a fair trial, and that meant he would reverse the conviction for a new trial.

Granting transfer, the Supreme Court agreed with that and found Hollingworth deserved a new trial on the misdemeanor conviction. Justices cited Indiana Judicial Conduct Canon 2, which requires a judge "to perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently;" they also cited Rule 2.2's comment 1, Rule 2.3(A), and Rule 2.8(A) - which respectively require the jurists act "without bias or prejudice," that the judges "be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants," and that a judge disqualify himself or herself if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

"The trial court's behavior in this case did not meet these standards," the justices' ruling says, vacating the intermediate appellate order and sending it back to the Marion County judge for a new trial.

Justice Theodore Boehm agreed with the majority on the merits of the case, but wrote that he would have denied transfer because the executed sentence in this case has already expired.

While the ruling indicates that Judge Young fell short of meeting the judicial conduct standards, it doesn't go into any potential disciplinary matters. That would be up to the Judicial Qualifications Commission to explore; those investigations are confidential until a verified complaint is filed or until the commission issues an admonishment or turns an action over to the Supreme Court for possible disciplinary action. The appellate court docket does not show any misconduct actions filed concerning Judge Young.

This is not the first case where Judge Young's conduct has raised questions. His traffic court practices have been the subject of a separate state suit that got transferred to federal court last year but is now back in that county court. In May, the Supreme Court appointed Morgan Circuit Judge Matthew Hansen as special judge in the case of Toshinao Ishii, et. al. v. Marion Superior 13, the Hon. William E. Young, Judge, and the City of Indianapolis, No. 49D11-0912-PL-55538, which is a class action complaint seeking to end the policies put in place by Judge Young since he took the traffic court bench in January 2009. The suit accuses the judge of instituting fine and access policies that undermine confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality, and are highly prejudicial to litigants.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT