ILNews

Longtime Marion County judge set to retire

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One of the first women elected as a trial judge in Indiana is preparing to leave the bench after 30 years.

At the end of this year, Marion Superior Judge Patricia Gifford will hang up the robe she's worn for three decades in presiding over a court that's handled mostly felony cases. One of her most nationally recognized cases came in 1992 when she presided over the rape trial of former boxing champion Mike Tyson.

The 1968 Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis graduate has been a pioneer for women lawyers, according to her colleagues. She worked as a deputy attorney general and Marion County deputy prosecutor after law school, and she became one of the first women in the U.S. assigned to prosecute only sex offense cases. Judge Gifford became a referee for the Marion Juvenile Court in 1975 and then ran successfully for Superior Judge, taking the bench Jan. 1, 1979, and becoming the sixth woman to be elected to a Hoosier trial court.

A retirement reception is planned for Judge Gifford from 6-9 p.m. Nov. 24, at the Columbia Club in downtown Indianapolis. The event is open to the public and attendees can RSVP at (317) 327-4520. Contributions are encouraged at the door and donations also can be mailed to the Patricia Gifford Retirement Party courtesy of attorney James C. Clark of the law firm Clark Quinn Moses Scott & Grahn, One Indiana Square, Suite 2200, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT