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 The Court of Appeals in November issued a not for publication ruling on her suspended license appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.