ILNews

Judge: 'I didn't lie ...': Marion Superior jurist faces disciplinary panel

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Marion Superior Judge Grant W. Hawkins is used to spending his days in court. But on Oct. 6 and 7, he wasn't on the bench; the jurist was the one being judged.

Already, his former part-time commissioner has resigned and been permanently banned from any judicial role because of this issue, and Judge Hawkins is battling 11 misconduct charges against him that could mean his judicial career is on the line.

But before he finds out his fate, the judge is waiting for three out-of-county colleagues to decide whether he violated judicial canons by not adequately supervising his court and misleading an investigation into his court's conduct.

On the bench since January 2001, this is the first time Judge Hawkins has faced a judicial disciplinary hearing. While his demeanor during testimony and in conversations outside the Indiana Supreme Court courtroom clearly illustrated he's nervous about what could happen, he is unwavering in his assertion that he never tried to cover up anything.

"I don't deny I didn't have a good operation," Judge Hawkins said. "But I didn't lie, I didn't mislead anyone. I stand up to my mistakes."

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission in April filed about a dozen charges each against Judge Hawkins and his former part-time commissioner Nancy L. Broyles alleging delay and dereliction of duties relating to the handling of various cases. Mostly, the counts dealt with the handling of a post-conviction case that resulted in Indianapolis man Harold Buntin being held in prison for 22 months after DNA evidence cleared him of a 1984 rape, for which he'd spent a total of 13 years in prison.

Buntin petitioned for relief in 1998 based on DNA evidence that wasn't available during his trial that he hoped would clear him; it eventually did in 2005. Serving in a part-time capacity since 2001, Broyles was assigned his post-conviction hearing in March 2005 and took it under advisement in April.

The case came to light after Buntin received no word from his Indianapolis attorney, Carolyn Rader, or the court, despite his repeated attempts to get an answer. He contacted the commission to investigate the reason for the delay in early 2007.

After the commission got involved, Judge Hawkins investigated and discovered an array of problems: a missing file that was later located, an order that appeared to have been signed 13 months after Broyles took the case under advisement but was not properly processed, and confusion about what caused the delays in the first place. Eventually, Judge Hawkins issued a notice of delay March 8, 2007, but it took an additional six weeks and another inquiry from the Judicial Qualifications Commission before a hearing was scheduled and Buntin was released April 20, 2007.

Now, it's up to three judicial masters - Delaware Circuit Judge Marianne Vorhees, Lake Superior Judge Clarence Murray, and Elkhart Circuit Judge Terry Shewmaker - to sift through the evidence and case history. They presided over the hearing and are expected to issue a report to the high court by Nov. 14.

At the hearing, Disciplinary Commission attorney Adrienne Meiring described a disorganized and delay-ridden court where Judge Hawkins failed to provide adequate supervision. Defense attorney Kevin McGoff contended that the sitting judge wasn't personally responsible for actions he wasn't aware of and at no time misled the investigating commission or parties involved in the case.

McGoff countered most of the witnesses by pointing out that much remains uncertain about the circumstances causing the delay and how differing recollections weren't proof that anyone intentionally misled the investigation.

Rader, Buntin's attorney, testified on the first day that she communicated with Broyles by e-mail, phone, and inquiry, but Rader chose not to bring it to the judge's attention.

"I didn't consider going to (Judge) Hawkins as advisable. I didn't want to cause friction between them, didn't want to get her in trouble, didn't want to raise Cain, didn't want to jeopardize Buntin's position," Rader said.

She testified that she has agreed to a public reprimand in her own disciplinary action, which was for failing to communicate with Buntin during the court delays. She's also reached an undisclosed settlement in a civil suit that Buntin filed against her, she testified.

Buntin's suit against the Marion County clerk and Judge Hawkins' court remains pending.

While it remains unclear exactly how the delays happened, both the judicial officers have taken responsibility for the Buntin case delays and how the court handled the issue.

Just days before the judicial misconduct hearing was to begin, the commission reached an agreement with Broyles in the action against her and the Indiana Supreme Court accepted that discipline Oct. 10. She voluntarily resigned in April, has been permanently banned from the bench, including pro tempore service, and is being publicly reprimanded.

In issuing its order, the court noted that she's shown consistent remorse for the events and takes responsibility for her actions and inactions. The court wrote, "a public reprimand adequately sanctions her for the admissions made as part of this agreement .... (it) remains on her record and is of great personal consequence for her as it would any attorney or judicial officer that considers their reputations to be their largest asset. "All justices agreed except Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who found the sanction to be inadequate.

During testimony at Judge Hawkins' hearing, Broyles said she regrets the delays and what happened, saying she agonized and stressed about this case and how to best respond to it - even during the delay that came after she took the case under advisement in April 2005.

"I was the cause .... I did not handle this well," the former commissioner testified, noting that she should have pressed for updates from all parties and moved the case more quickly. "Of my many regrets on this whole matter ... that was my biggest one. I take full responsibility for that."

Broyles said she had no reason to think the judge had misled anyone on the matter and said she's never heard him accused of dishonesty, and some of the judge's colleagues and attorneys practicing before him defended his integrity.

However, Broyles testified that just prior to leaving the bench this spring, a check with court administration showed that Criminal Court 5 continued to have too many PCR cases open, an issue that testimony indicated may have been caused by staff not correctly closing files.

Judge Hawkins said he greatly regrets what happened and has vowed to make sure the process is more closely monitored and scrutinized in his courtroom. Drastic changes have already been implemented, he said.

"You have a system in place you think is working well, and you don't know it isn't working well until someone brings it to your attention," he told the masters' panel. "Mistakes happen to the best of us. I've always wanted to be the best of us, and until Buntin came along, I didn't fully realize the limitations we have." •
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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT