I asked each of the candidates six questions relating to what may be described as a candidates platform. These included the operation of the court, what they thought they could do to better serve the people appearing in court, their personal motivation to be a candidate, and what they could do to mitigate the impact of custody cases on children. Finally, I offered them an opportunity to submit an essay of any length to be reproduced here word-for-word. I did not ask for comment on specific cases or for prejudicial opinions -- that is, how he or she would rule on a potential matter.
I received the following response from candidate Todd Meyer;
“Thank you for your message and for your interest in the judicial race for Boone Circuit Court. I reviewed your proposed questions and consulted with the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and regretfully must decline participation in this process. As you may know, as a candidate for judicial office I am required to follow the rules set forth in Indiana’s Code of Judicial Conduct. While I would like to respond to your questions I believe doing so may put me at risk of violating certain sections of the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rules 4.1 and 2.4 that are more specifically explained within the respective comments to those rules.”
First, I feel that I should disclose that Todd Meyer has an incident in his past relating to a rule violation while prosecutor. An extra-judicial statement [one made outside of the courtroom] about evidentiary matters in an upcoming trial were attributed to him in a newspaper article. The problem with discussing evidence outside of the courtroom is that it could reach potential jurors yet later be ruled inadmissable. This potentially deprives the defendant of due process. It is a rather serious offense.
A complaint was made to the Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court not by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, nor any other attorney but by the author here, yours truly -- Stuart Showalter. Meyer was susequently charged with misconduct. Thus, it is understandable that he would be reticent to provide comment to questions about judicial administration, especially to me.
I had no plans to gather information about the candidates from their promotional materials or any other source for my purpose here. To do so now would compromise objectivity. Instead I am providing the text of the two rules Mr Meyer cited and I will leave it to you to do your research or otherwise.
RULE 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
Comment
[1] An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge's friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.
RULE 4.1: Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
(A) Except as permitted by law,* or by Rules 4.1(B), 4.1(C), 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, a judge or a judicial candidate* shall not:
(1) act as a leader in or hold an office in a political organization;*
(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization;
(3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office;
(4) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution* to a political organization or a candidate for public office;
(5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office;
(6) publicly identify himself or herself as a member or candidate of a political organization;
(7) seek, accept, or use endorsements from a political organization;
(8) personally solicit* or accept campaign contributions other than through a campaign committee authorized by Rule 4.4;
(9) use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the judge, the candidate, or others;
(10) use court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a campaign for judicial office or for any political purpose;
(11) knowingly,* or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement;
(12) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court; or
(13) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
(B) A judge or judicial candidate shall take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake, on behalf of the judge or judicial candidate, any activities prohibited under paragraph (A).
(C) A judge in an office filled by partisan election, a judicial candidate seeking that office, and a judicial officer serving for a judge in office filled by partisan election may at any time:
(1) identify himself or herself as a member of a political party;
(2) voluntarily contribute to and attend meetings of political organizations; and
(3) attend dinners and other events sponsored by political organizations and may purchase a ticket for such an event and a ticket for a guest.
(D) A judge in an office filled by nonpartisan election other than a retention election, a judicial candidate seeking that office, and a judicial officer serving for a judge in an office filled by nonpartisan election may at any time attend dinners and other events sponsored by political organizations and may purchase a ticket for such an event and a ticket for a guest.
Thank you for your interest in the election. The 2018 primary election occurs on Tuesday 08 May.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
No comments:
Post a Comment