ILNews

Marion Superior judge faces week-long disciplinary case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A week-long hearing has been set in the disciplinary case against a Marion Superior judge who now faces 47 counts alleging she violated Rules of Judicial Conduct.

Judge Kimberly Brown’s hearings before special masters appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court will begin at 9 a.m. daily from Nov. 4 through Nov. 8. A panel of three special masters presided over by retired Monroe County Judge Viola Taliaferro will hear the case. Parties will confer by phone in a pre-trial conference Wednesday.

The Indiana Supreme Court appointed the special masters in response to a petition asking that Brown be suspended from the bench pending the outcome of the disciplinary case. Justices last month declined to suspend Brown.

Charges lodged by the Judicial Qualifications Commission assert that Brown’s actions of failure to act led to the delayed release of at least nine defendants, and that she created “a hostile environment for attorneys, court staff, clerks, and other court officials.” At least nine defendants spent one to 22 days in the Marion County Jail when they shouldn’t have, the counts say.

The statement of charges against Brown also asserts that between 2009 and January 2013, when Brown was elected to serve as judge either in Criminal Division 16 or 7, she failed to properly complete necessary paperwork and failed to properly train and supervise staff and court officers. She also is accused of improperly converting jury trials to bench trials and causing multiple needless delays.

The commission last week petitioned to add two more counts to the original 45. The new counts allege that Brown failed to issue an order in a case after her judgment of restitution was reversed by the Court of Appeals. She also is accused of failing to rule on a post-conviction relief petition filed by the same defendant.  

The case is In the Matter of the Honorable Kimberly J. Brown Judge of the Marion Superior Court, 49S00-1308-JD-560.

 
 

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