The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has filed disciplinary charges against Marion Superior Court Judge William E. Young.  Judge Young has presided over Traffic Court since January 2009.  He has been an elected judge since January 2001.  The Commission has filed four counts of misconduct against Young centering on his general handling of traffic court cases and one case in particular.

In the “Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges,” the Commission claims Judge Young “engaged in a practice of imposing substantially higher penalties against traffic court litigants who chose to have trials and lost.”  The Statement of Charges also details allegations that Judge Young “routinely made statements implying that litigants should not demand trials and would be penalized for doing so if they lost.”

The charging document also provides details about Judge Young’s alleged misconduct in the specific case of a 2009 criminal defendant.  The Commission alleges Judge Young mishandled Christian Hollinsworth’s case and “exhibited impatience and frustration with Hollinsworth and her attorney and made sarcastic remarks.”  The Commission’s 16-point fact summary of the Hollinsworth case includes allegations Judge Young insisted on moving forward with trial despite Ms. Hollinsworth’s objection, found her guilty, and then imposed the maximum sentence of one-year incarceration, which he later modified after Hollinsworth filed two separate requests for a sentence modification.

Hollinsworth subsequently appealed the conviction.  On June 3, 2010 the Indiana Supreme Court handed down an opinion in Christian Hollinsworth v. State of Indiana (49S02-1006-CR-286) which reversed Hollinsworth’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial because Judge Young’s behavior did not meet the ethical standards required by the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.

The four specific counts alleging misconduct are provided in the “Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges.” Generally they include the following:

1. Count I centers on statements that Judge Young made and conduct he engaged in during the February 4, 2009 Hollinsworth proceedings.  The Commission alleges Judge Young violated Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and to maintain high standards of conduct; violated Rule 2.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to perform their duties fairly and impartially; violated Rule 2.3(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to perform their duties without bias or prejudice; violated Rule 2.8(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants and lawyers; violated Rule 2.11(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge disqualify himself when the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party; and committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

2. Count II includes the Commission charge that in 2009 Judge Young had a practice of imposing increased penalties against traffic infraction litigants for exercising their rights to trial.  The Commission alleges that, by doing so, Judge Young violated Rule 1.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to comply with the law, violated Rules 1.2 and 2.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 

3. Count III charges that, in 2009, Judge Young had a general practice after trials on traffic infraction cases of imposing a standard penalty against unsuccessful litigants, without considering each litigant’s specific circumstances and, therefore, violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

4. Count IV charges that in 2009 Judge Young routinely attempted to coerce traffic court litigants into admitting infractions through his advisements, comments, projections about potential evidence, and misstatements about the burden of proof.  The Commission alleges that, by doing so, Judge Young violated Rule 1.2, 2.2, and 2.6(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement and committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  

Judge Young has the opportunity to file an Answer to the charges with the Supreme Court within twenty days of receiving the charges.  After the Answer is filed or twenty days has passed, the Indiana Supreme Court will appoint three Masters (Judges) to conduct a public hearing on the charge that Judge Young committed judicial misconduct. 

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications is the 7-member group that investigates alleged ethical misconduct by judges.  Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard chairs the Commission.  The Indiana Supreme Court that has final authority over judicial discipline. The Court can dismiss the charges against Judge Young or it can impose sanctions ranging from a reprimand to a permanent ban on holding a judicial office in Indiana.