Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court has banned a former Franklin County judge from ever sitting on the bench again.
In a Thursday order, the court found that retired Judge Steven Cox, who served on the Franklin Circuit Court for nearly 30 years, engaged in improper ex parte communication with a Level 1 felony criminal defendant and relied on that communication to rule in the case.
“This egregious misconduct warrants the most serious discipline we can impose on a judge who no longer holds elected office: Respondent’s permanent ban from judicial service and a public reprimand,” the court stated.
Attorneys for Cox did not immediately respond to The Indiana Lawyer’s email or phone calls.
Although Cox retired in 2024, he could have returned to the bench as a senior judge or judge pro tempore.
With Thursday’s ruling, Cox is prohibited from donning the black robes or serving in a judicial capacity again.
According to court documents, the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission first filed its complaint against Cox on April 3, 2025, alleging three counts of misconduct: that Cox engaged in ex parte communication while presiding over a Level 1 felony criminal case; relied on that ex parte communication to rule on issues in the case; and implemented a de facto policy of rejecting all written plea agreements.
The matter stems from a 2022 felony attempted murder case: State v. Guilfoyle.
On Dec. 23, 2022, former police officer Gregory Guilfoyle was charged with two Level 1 felony attempted murder charges and one Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent charge after shooting his wife in the head and later exchanging gunfire with law enforcement, all while in the presence of his young daughter.
Cox presided over the case between December 2022 and February 2024.
On Jan. 11, 2023, Guilfoyle’s attorneys filed a motion for a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he was competent to stand trial.
Following a hearing on the motion, Cox placed Guilfoyle on home detention at his parents’ house. Probation officers were ordered to visit the house weekly and report on Guilfoyle’s condition. But Cox did not rule on the evaluation motion, the court stated.
Counsel filed subsequent motions related to Guilfoyle’s physical and mental needs.
Then, on Jan. 26, 2023, Cox requested that the probation officer personally take him to Guilfoyle’s residence, without notifying any counsel.
According to court documents, Cox felt he had a “responsibility to know the home’s condition to ensure the placement was appropriate and to protect himself and the court from liability.”
Cox spoke with Guilfoyle and his parents about his physical and mental condition.
Cox later issued an order authorizing in-home detention providers to transport Guilfoyle to a medical facility, telling counsel the reason was based on the probation officer’s report, an email with the officer and the “subsequent in-person inspection of the in-home detention residence by the Court.” The prosecutor later testified that he did not take Cox’s order to mean he personally spoke with the defendant.
On Feb. 3, 2023, Guilfoyle’s counsel tried getting a psychiatric evaluation again and also filed for a notice of intent to interpose an insanity defense.
At a March 29 hearing, Cox addressed the motions, saying that, although the court “isn’t equipped, or schooled or certified in evaluation of a person’s mental condition,” when he personally visited the defendant, Guilfoyle “was able to understand and answer the court’s questions with regard to his physical conditions.”
Cox later denied the defense counsel’s motion for psychiatric evaluation and insanity defense, citing his own personal observations of Guilfoyle while visiting his home.
According to the court, Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.9(A) generally prohibits a judge from engaging in ex parte communication, although there can be exceptions, like administrative and emergency reasons.
Cox maintained that his communications with the defendant fell under those two exceptions, according to court documents.
The court disagreed, saying the visit addressed substantive matters, not administrative ones.
It also did not buy the emergency reason. Cox pointed to a Jan. 26, 2023, probation report that described Guilfoyle’s “extreme amount of pain,” “paralysis from the waist down,” fractured rib” and “open wound near his right leg” that continued “to leak bodily fluids.”
“But even assuming an emergency existed, Respondent fails to explain why he could not rely on Campbell’s weekly reports to appropriately address the emergency,” the court stated.
The court also determined that Cox violated Rule 2.9(C), which prohibits a judge from independent fact-gathering.
“A judge is required to consider only evidence presented by the parties or facts that may be properly judicially noticed,” the court stated.
Aside from the ex parte communication findings, the court also found that Cox had committed misconduct through a de facto policy he used, denying all written plea agreements regardless of the merits of each case.
Justice Derek Molter, joined by Justices Mark Massa and Geoffrey Slaughter in a separate, concurring opinion, agreed with the ex parte visit discipline, but did not agree with the plea agreement conclusion, saying it would be better resolved through a direct appellate review or an original action for a writ.
The case is In the Matter of James Steven Cox (25S-JD-00080).
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.