ILNews

Retired U.S. magistrate judge dies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County attorney who later served as judge of the Circuit Court and as a United States Magistrate Judge died Sept. 1.

J. Patrick Endsley, a graduate of Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, was a lifetime resident of Marion County who began practicing in 1956 and worked as a deputy city and county prosecutor, public defender, and as chief deputy attorney general. He was elected judge of Marion Circuit Court in 1974. Four years later, he was appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Indiana. He retired from that position in 1994.

After retirement, Magistrate Endsley served as chairman of the organizing committee and on the board of directors of the Southern District’s Public Defender Program. In 2006, he received the 50-year award as a member of the Indianapolis Inn of Court. He received the Sagamore of the Wabash in 1968 and 1989. He was a member of the Indianapolis, Indiana State, 7th Circuit, Federal, and American bar associations, and served as president of the Indianapolis Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

Magistrate Endsley was an Army veteran and served during the occupation of Japan. He later served as counsel for the Sugamo Prison veterans associations. He was an active Democrat who served in a number of precincts and as ward chairman. Magistrate Endsley also was an active gardener, maintaining 25 garden plots.

He is survived by his children Nancy G. (Vincent) Wagner, Deirdre E., Kevin C. (Kerry), Kathleen A. (George) Miroslavich, and Rosemary C. (Jeffery) Kemp; brother Thomas (Barbara); and sister Mary Ellen Kelly.

A memorial service will be held at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Aaron-Ruben-Nelson Mortuary, 11411 N. Michigan Road. Visitation is from 4 to 7 p.m. In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to the United Christmas Fund or to the donor’s favorite charity.
 

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