ILNews

Masters call for Marion Superior judge's removal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A three-judge panel is recommending that a Marion Superior judge be removed from the bench for judicial misconduct.

In a 70-page report filed Thursday and released today in the case of In the Matter of The Hon. Grant W. Hawkins, No. 49S00-0804-JD-0157, the masters found that Judge Hawkins violated canons and committed 10 counts of judicial misconduct relating to how he supervised his court.

The Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission had filed charges in April accusing him and former Commissioner Nancy Broyles of misconduct, which in large part led to a pattern of case delays and one that resulted in a wrongfully convicted man, Harold Buntin, being kept in prison almost two years after DNA cleared him of a crime. She has since voluntarily resigned and was permanently banned from the bench, and the panel conducted a two-day hearing for the judge in early October.

That panel - Delaware Circuit Judge Marianne Vorhees, Lake Superior Judge Clarence Murray, and Elkhart Circuit Judge Terry Shewmaker - had until Nov. 24 to issue its findings and recommendations to the court.

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

The masters acknowledged his apology and remorse, but they said this case called for a more serious sanction. The masters would have recommended a suspension without pay because of how he generally handled the post-conviction relief issues if it weren't for what resulted in the Buntin case.

The masters don't believe that Judge Hawkins intended to deceive, mislead, or hide anything during the investigation, but that he negligently made misrepresentations caused by his failure to fully investigate the situation. He then failed to correct those misimpressions he and his staff gave - and that failure is the same as the judge deliberately setting out to deceive the commission and the public, the masters wrote.

"We reach these conclusions with great regret and after much thought and do not make this recommendation lightly," the panel wrote. "As trial judges, we know too well how difficult our jobs are, how many demands we have on our time and attention, and how easy it is to make mistakes. The Masters believe, however, the mistakes made in this case were so critical, the loss of liberty so significant, and the Judge's response so lacking, that we as trial judges would not carry out our duty as Masters unless we called for a significant sanction."

A court employee told Indiana Lawyer this morning that Judge Hawkins was on the bench and not immediately available for comment by deadline for this story. His attorney Kevin McGoff with Bingham McHale also couldn't be immediately reached.

Judge Hawkins has been on the Superior 5 bench since 2001. The Indiana Supreme Court has the ultimate say on what sanctions, if any, Judge Hawkins will receive. Sanctions could range from a private or public reprimand to removal.

Justices may receive the case for consideration by the end of the year or early next year following the procedural response times from both sides, according to commission counsel Meg Babcock. Once that happens, justices aren't obligated to issue a decision on any specific timeline.

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT