Preview:

ATTORNEY FOR HON. THOMAS NEWMAN, JR. James H. Voyles, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS Meg W. Babcock Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 48S00-0607-JD-274 IN THE MATTER OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS NEWMAN, JR., JUDGE OF THE MADISON SUPERIOR COURT NO. 3 _________________________________ JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION _________________________________ December 19, 2006 Per Curiam.

Judge Thomas Newman's failure to do his duty has brought the judiciary into disrepute. We consider here the disciplinary consequences of his failure. This matter comes before the Court as a result of a judicial disciplinary action brought by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications ("Commission") against the Respondent herein, Thomas Newman, Jr., Judge of the Madison Superior Court No. 3. Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution and Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 25 give the Indiana Supreme Court original jurisdiction over this matter. Subsequent to the filing of formal charges by the Commission, the parties jointly tendered a "Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" in which the parties stipulate to certain facts concerning Respondent's behavior, agree that these facts

demonstrate violations of certain Canons of Judicial Conduct, and request the imposition of a public reprimand as an appropriate sanction. The Court, following its own review of the matter, agrees with the parties that Respondent's behavior did violate the Canons of Judicial Conduct cited by the parties and that a public reprimand is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case. Stipulated Facts On October 23, 2000, Respondent presided over a matter in which he found the defendant, Lance Dawson, in violation of his probation. Respondent revoked Dawson's

probation and sentenced him to serve the duration of an original six-year term in the Department of Correction ("DOC"). Dawson appealed. On July 18, 2001, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision, issuing an opinion that concluded Respondent had erred in revoking Dawson's probation and in sentencing him to the DOC. The Court of Appeals' opinion

remanded the case to Respondent for proceedings consistent with its opinion. See Dawson v. State, 751 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Judge Carr Darden, in a concurring opinion, wrote: Whereas I wholeheartedly agree with the majority's decision in this case, I write to explain that I think we should go further by ordering the immediate release and discharge of the defendant in this cause. It is obvious that the state has presented its strongest case for revocation of probation and has failed. The remote possibility that the defendant could be incarcerated another day longer while the state reviews our ruling on remand, for further proceedings consistent herein, offends my sense of fair play under the facts in this case. There is no evidence that supports further delay by the state for keeping the defendant locked up. I would order immediate release and discharge in this matter. Id. at 815 (Darden, J., concurring). That same day, the Court of Appeals sent a "courtesy copy" of the opinion via facsimile to Respondent's court. In response, Respondent told his court reporter to arrange Dawson's release, but did not specifically instruct her to prepare an order. Respondent's court reporter contacted Dawson's appellate counsel and advised him of the appeal's outcome, faxed a copy of the opinion to the DOC, and entered the following on the court's chronological case summary:

2

Opinion

Download In the Matter of the Hon. Thomas Newman, Jr..pdf

Indiana Law