The Supreme Court has issued an order removing Marion Superior Court Judge Kim Brown from office, affirming the findings of the special masters that she was guilty of 46 of the 47 charges the Judicial Qualifications Commission brought against her. Those charges covered a variety of misconduct charges related to Judge Brown's performance of her judicial duties, including: misplacing case files, delays in ruling on motions and petitions filed in her court, actions that resulted in delays in releasing offenders from jail, mistreatment of court staff and attorneys, and retaliatory actions taken against staff members she disfavored, among other things. Judge Brown's refusal to take an oath and affirm to tell the truth during a deposition taken during the proceedings and otherwise cooperate with the investigation of her conduct did not sit well with the Supreme Court.
As a result of today's decision, Judge Brown is disqualified from seeking election to the bench this year; however, she will not be further sanctioned from practicing law in this state. In a concurring opinion, Justice Robert Rucker agreed that her misconduct, if not corrected, warranted her removal from the bench; however, he disagreed with his fellow justices in their decision to remove Judge Brown from the bench immediately. He characterized her misconduct as falling within two categories: mismanagement of judicial duties; and unprofessional demeanor. He compared her case to other cases in which the court handled the disciplining of a judge for similar conduct short of immediate removal. Justice Rucker believed that Judge Brown should first be afforded an opportunity to take remedial actions to correct problems in her court as occurred in other disciplinary cases before rendering judgment on whether she should be removed from the bench.
It took far too long and cost the taxpayers too much money. How long has she been collecting a 6-figue annual salary while suspended from the bench? In that time, another person has to be paid to sit in that court. The masters decision came in December. The court issues a ruling in March.
ReplyDeleteWhen the wheels of justice turn slow, justice itself is slowed. In this case the taxpayers have paid the price.
Remember this when they come for retention on the ballot.
Now all you competent Judges that we choose to keep in your jobs may return to your seats; not so fast Judge Grant Hawkins. You still have some explaining to do. The whole lazy judge business. The “accidental” keeping of people in jail who don’t belong in jail. The vindictive custody decisions. The $2,500 get out of jail bail for attempted murder. The elephant in the room is that everyone thinks you should retire. Now. Not in 2016. Now.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can fault the Supreme Court for not acting quickly enough. There was a lot of evidence to pour over that was considered by the special masters in reaching its findings and recommendation. Both sides had to be given an opportunity to brief the court on the case. Considering whether to remove someone from office who was elected by the voters is a big step that should not be taken lightly. Judge Brown truly was elected by the voters. She bypassed slating and defeated a candidate slated by the Democratic Party to win her seat on the bench.
ReplyDeleteJudge Hawkins is not the judge with the lazy judge issue; that involves a civil court judge whose misconduct has been brought to the attention of the Judicial Qualifications Commission staff. I anxiously await the results of their investigation of him.
I agree with Gary. I think the SCT acted pretty darn quickly. She was an elected judge, truly elected, by the voters. Removing her from office is a big deal and should be done with some thoughtful consideration. While some states remove judges and attorneys before the ultimate authority, the SCT decides, I'm totally opposed to that practice.
ReplyDeleteA member of the SC needs to remember some actions of lawyers in a county during divorce and child custody matters...
ReplyDelete