ILNews

UPDATE: Hamilton Superior judge surprised by case resolution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In all his years on the bench, Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes said he hasn’t experienced what he did this week as a defendant in a North Carolina court.

The longtime judge spoke with Indiana Lawyer Tuesday about his criminal drunk driving case stemming from an Oct. 27 arrest. He was pulled over and arrested in the Outer Banks for driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.13 - nearly twice the state’s legal limit of 0.08.

He was charged with misdemeanor driving while impaired and traffic infraction of driving left of center, and Judge Hughes said he traveled to North Carolina on Monday for what he expected to be his trial on those two counts.

Instead, the judge said he arrived at the Currituck District Court that morning to find a new reckless driving charge against him. After about five minutes before the bench there for an arraignment, Judge Hughes said he followed his attorney’s advice and pleaded guilty to the new reckless driving charge, a Class 2 misdemeanor under state statute §20-140(b).

His criminal sanction: 12 months of unsupervised probation that includes enrolling and completing an alcohol and drug assessment program within 180 days or attending at least 10 hours of substance abuse counseling. Additionally, he stipulated that he won’t operate a vehicle within eight hours of consuming any alcohol and paid a $300 fine and $143 in court costs.

“I was surprised by the resolution and quite frankly, pleased with it,” he said. “I’m not satisfied that this result had to happen, but under the circumstances I believe it was the best result that I could have ever expected. I’m certainly not happy with my conduct. I’ve learned many life lessons from this, though I’m sorry that this is how I came to learn them.”

Judge Hughes said the process in that North Carolina court was different than he’s seen before, and he came away from that experience also seeing what it’s like on the other side of the bench and how it can be confusing to defendants. Since his arrest, Judge Hughes said he followed the guidance of the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission and removed himself from any DWI cases that have come before him in Hamilton Superior 3. Senior Judge Judy Proffitt has been presiding over those cases, and he isn’t sure at this time how long that might continue.

Judge Hughes first joined the bench in 1988 and does not have any previous discipline history with the Indiana system. The judge self-reported his out-of-state arrest to the Indiana judicial disciplinary board and he has been cooperating with that process.

Generally, any disciplinary charges come once the criminal case is complete. The Indiana Supreme Court would make any final decision on discipline once that process begins. In the past, other trial judges who’ve faced drunken-driving charges have received public reprimands for similar conduct.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • above the law
    Every citizen should know what this judge did. He feels he is above the law. He should have lost his position, 90 suspension of license, report to probation, and never be allowed to drink. What a jerk instead its reduced to reckless driving. making sure every hamilton county citizen is aware and he should be fired.
  • Do all legal officers who
    drive after more than one drink demonstrate a lack of respect for the law and public safety to recommend harsh sanctions? Point if fact: drunk driving is illegal and kills. Or are some crimes not worth noting?
  • no big deal
    A lot of people who get charged with DUI get off on a lesser charge. That is no no big deal. He got caught, he's plead guilty to a serious albeit lesser traffic offense, got a typical penalty, self-reported the naughty, now lets get past this and forget about it and let him get on with his job. In the annals of judicial misconduct this is an absolutely insignificant event.
    • differing standards of justice?
      This result is suprising only if one believes that all, elites and the great unwashed, live under the same justice system. If there is, instead, differing standards for differing stations, as Orwell predicted in Animal Farm, then this makes perfect sense.

    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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

    2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

    3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

    4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

    5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

    ADVERTISEMENT