ILNews

Suspended LaPorte judge acquitted at trial

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


A suspended LaPorte Superior judge has been acquitted of any criminal charges involving an accidental shooting where her head was grazed by a bullet and led to accusations that she tried to cover up details about what happened.

But three judicial misconduct charges remain pending against Judge Jennifer Evans-Koethe. In a response to the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, she denies intentionally trying to cover up evidence and blames her head wound for affecting her memory and what she said immediately after the Dec. 22, 2008, incident.

Judge Koethe was a judge-elect when she was shot in the head in her home, shortly before taking the bench in January 2009. At the time of the incident, there were discrepancies as to how the judge was shot. Judge Koethe originally told authorities she accidentally shot herself and didn't know where the gun was located. She later told a detective at the hospital she put the gun to her head to scare her husband but didn't know it was loaded when it fired.

She also told a detective she wrote a note to her husband and asked him to get rid of it. That request led to a grand jury indictment. As a result, Koethe faced criminal charges of felony attempted obstruction of justice. The trial was transferred to Lake Superior Court, and a jury found her not guilty Jan. 5.

Even with the not-guilty finding the judge, who's been suspended since May 11, still faces judicial discipline charges that could lead to a reprimand, unpaid suspension, or possibly removal from the bench. The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed charges against her in December, accusing her of deliberately withholding or misrepresenting pertinent information during taped statements and violating professional conduct rules by asking a police officer to destroy potential evidence.

In her response Jan. 8, the judge denies being asked about the whereabouts of her handgun when police came to her home in response to the shooting, and said she had no recollection of being questioned there. At trial, a police officer testified that both she and her husband said they "didn't know" where the gun was, although it was later found hidden in a laundry basket in a bedroom closet.

"However, she has been informed and believes, and therefore admits, that she spoke such words as those attributed to her," her response says.

The response also denies deliberately omitting disclosure of the note in a recorded statement.

James Fenton, the Fort Wayne attorney representing her on the discipline charges, could not be reached for comment prior to deadline for this story.

The Indiana Supreme Court will appoint three special masters by mid-February to hear the evidence and submit a report to the justices for consideration on what, if any, discipline should be imposed. Justices have final say on that.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT