ILNews

Opponent's claims against judge regarding killer result in disciplinary charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The woman challenging Franklin Circuit Judge Steven Cox for his job faces seven disciplinary charges over statements attributed to her about the judge’s release of a prisoner who a year later killed five people, according to a statement Friday from the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission. The commission has asked for a public hearing on the charges.

Tammy R. Davis of Brookville is accused of making statements she knew were inaccurate about Cox’s modification of a sentence that resulted in the release of David Ison to probation in July 2010. Ison in March was sentenced to life in prison without parole after pleading guilty to the murders of Roy Napier and his estranged wife, Angela Napier; their children, Jacob and Melissa Napier; and Henry Smith in the small town of Laurel.

The killings took place in September 2011. Davis is accused of insisting that Ison’s earliest release date was March 2011. “Although Ison’s release date should have been listed as September 21, 2010, Department of Correction records inaccurately reflected that Ison’s new out date was March 23, 2011,” according to the charges.

“Davis left voters with the mistaken impression that Ison still would have been in jail in February and/or September 2011 and could not have committed certain crimes,” according to one of the charges against her.

The commission provided DOC records to Davis but said in announcing the charges that she “failed to correct the misleading statements made by or attributed to her that gave the inaccurate impression to the public that the defendant would have been in prison and would not have been able to commit certain crimes, including murder, had Judge Cox not modified the sentence.”

Davis also is accused of alleging that Cox modified Ison’s sentence because the two were boyhood friends, a charge the JQC said is unsupported by evidence.

The JQC said Davis’ statements regarding Ison appeared in local newspapers, in her campaign literature and on her campaign website. According to the JQC, the charges are:

  • Counts 1 and 3: Davis failed to correct inaccurate statements attributed to her in newspaper articles, an alleged violation of Rule 4.2(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, requiring that candidates act at all times in a manner consistent with the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary;
  • Count 2: Davis made, with reckless disregard for the truth, inaccurate statements on her campaign website and in political ads in violation of Rule 4.1(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judicial candidates to not knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any misleading statement;
  • Count 4: Davis’ statement on her campaign website that intended to give the impression to voters that her opponent was granting favors to a defendant based on some improper relationship was a violation of Rule 4.2(A)(1);
  • Count 5: Davis’ quote in an August political advertisement gave the improper impression that her opponent could not be trusted with the community’s safety and was a violation of Rule 4.2(A)(1); and
  • Counts 6 and 7: Davis authorized statements such as “Franklin County deserves an honest judge who will do the right thing” in campaign ads and claimed that Cox should not have filed an ethical complaint with the commission in violation of Rule 4.2(A)(1).


The JQC asked the Supreme Court for a public hearing on the charges. Davis has 20 days to answer the charges, after which the Indiana Supreme Court will appoint three judges as special masters to conduct a public hearing, according to the JQC’s statement.
 
The Supreme Court has final authority over judicial discipline and can dismiss the charges or impose sanctions ranging from a reprimand to a permanent ban on holding a judicial office in Indiana.

Davis’s website, www.tammydavisforjudge.com, contains a section on Ison that includes DOC records and Cox’s order that modified Ison’s sentence after a divorce hearing at which Cox later said Ison and his wife had reconciled. Midday Friday, the Ison section of Davis’ site concluded, “the bottom line remains: without Steve Cox, David Ison would have been back in prison after his divorce hearing on July 15th, 2010.”

Davis was admitted to the Indiana bar in May 2006 and has no concluded disciplinary history, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • dubious exercise amid an election
    With all this talk about democracy and so forth, its interesting that the bar involves itself in policiing political speech amidst an election. I think that does not reflect well on lawyers. Americans have to pay big money for foreign wars and domestic elections and they should get the benefit of all this lip service to democracy without this kind of apparent interferce in the political process. There is a danger here that voters will be unduly swayed by this commission inquiry and that it may be seen as the establishment protecting turf.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT