Howard County Judge Elkin gets lifetime ban from Indiana Supreme Court
Reading his quotes, all I can say is, "Wow..."
Some of that is an understatement...
He showed some very obvious favoritism among defendants/participants in his court that are listed in the article. Some may think they're not a big deal individually, but he demonstrated a pretty serious pattern of partiality that a judge simply cannot have. He also disclosed privileged information and had some of the people working under him in the PSC court followed outside of court, accusing them of being "moles".
Reading his quotes, all I can say is, "Wow..."
Quote:
Matthew J. Elkin, a judge in Howard Superior Court 1, was asked to resign from his position this week and received a lifetime ban. This was made official on Thursday in a discipline filing by the Indiana Supreme Court.
The filing states that Elkin has been found guilty of judicial misconduct for several reasons, including:
Failing to disqualify himself from presiding over matters in which he previously represented a party
Making injudicious comments toward problem-solving court ("PSC") participants,
Favoring certain litigants while degrading others,
Inadequately supervising employees, and
Possibly misusing court funds.
Elkin was previously charged in March with nine counts of judicial misconduct. The Indiana Supreme Court has now found him guilty on all charges.
Some of that is an understatement...
Quote:
Elkin reportedly once told a domestic violence survivor that "women don't leave" abusive relationships because their brains enjoy the physical pain, comparing victims to Tom Brady. A transcript of what Elkin said can be seen below:
Elkin reportedly went on to say that the woman "doesn't deserve a chance" to receive justice and referred to her as "property."
"You don't deserve this chance. I know what's wrong with you and I know how to fix it," he said. "You're not even my property yet. Do you know that you're the Department of Correction's property for 98 days?"
He showed some very obvious favoritism among defendants/participants in his court that are listed in the article. Some may think they're not a big deal individually, but he demonstrated a pretty serious pattern of partiality that a judge simply cannot have. He also disclosed privileged information and had some of the people working under him in the PSC court followed outside of court, accusing them of being "moles".