Showing posts with label Judge William Young. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge William Young. Show all posts

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Judge Bill Young Earns "Triple Crown of Dubiousness"


The judiciary today became the third branch of state government to tell Republican Marion County Traffic Court Judge Bill Young: "Not a fan!"

You may recall how Judge Young's practice of doubling or tripling the fines for people who went to trial and lost resulted in not only a class action lawsuit, but also the Indiana General Assembly's passage of a bill barring the practice that was signed into law by Governor Daniels.

Well, today the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion that unanimously chided Judge Young for failing to be impartial, courteous, and open-minded.

The short version? His Honor took a recess so a Defendant could discuss a plea agreement. She opted to go to trial, then when the State called its first witness, she changed her mind.

Young stated in response that if she was found guilty, she was going to jail for a year and added, "I don’t know if I want to take your plea. I’d rather just go to trial, I think. I don’t like being jerked around at all, all right?”

In addition, while reviewing the Defendant's criminal history at sentencing, Judge Young noted new charges for theft and battery. When the Defendant's counsel asid, "Those are only alleged charges," Young responded, "Sure, they are."

Here's the Supreme Court's rhetorical body slam:

Indiana Judicial Conduct Canon 2 requires a judge to “perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.” Judges must be “objective and open-minded.” Rule 2.2, comment 1. “A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office . . . without bias or prejudice.” Rule 2.3(A). “A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants.” Rule 2.8(B). A judge shall disqualify himself or herself “in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” including in circumstances when “the judge has a personal bias or prejudicial concerning a party.” Rule 2.11(A).

The trial court’s behavior in this case did not meet these standards.

I've heard from judicial officers on both sides of the party fence that Judge Young is looking to move back into the City-County Building when the shuffling occurs by virtue of Judge Tonya Walton-Pratt going to the federal bench.

This is the conduct we should promote?


Share/Save/Bookmark

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Double Shock Power Wednesday for Brizzi, Judge William Young



Fox 59’s Russ McQuaid (who has been on Brizzi like onions on a Harry & Izzy’s steakburger) reports that a waitress for the restaurant name dropped Brizzi and Peyton Manning to a police officer following her arrest for operating while intoxicated.

Her case was ultimately (and properly) handled by a special prosecutor. You might say, “So Brizzi's policy of recusing himself worked? What’s the issue?”

McQuaid reports that Judge William Young “turned down the special prosecutor request three times to display his displeasure with Brizzi's ownership of the bar, the inherent conflict of interest, and the expense of administering such a relatively minor case.” (Unfortunately, the story does not report what the actual cost is for a special prosecutor).

Ring. Ring.

“Hello, Kettle? Yes, this is the pot calling to tell you you’re black.”

Judge Young is worried about how much it cost in one case to appoint a special prosecutor?

How about the cost that we’ll all pay for the class action lawsuit because the Judge has been charging extra money for people to take their traffic cases to trial, in pretty clear violation of, oh, what’s that called again…...oh, right, the Constitution?

My rule of thumb is that if the Indiana General Assembly approves a law and the Governor signs it specifically to undo something I did, that’s a pretty good indication that I’ve screwed up majorly, and I might just want to sit down and keep quiet.

Also, the Indianapolis Star's Jon Murray reports that after Brizzi's press secertary Mario Massillamany resigned following his DUI arrest, Brizzi hired the PR firm of Hirons & Company.

According to Murray, this deal actually saves the taxpayers money because, at $6,500 per month, it ends up being $78,000 annually, which was $2,000 less than Mario's salary, and that's before including benefits. (In fact, I'm astonished Mayor Ballard hasn't outsourced every public information officer job yet in exchange for campaign cash from the PR firms. But I digress).

Two things bothers me about this story. First, the bar shouldn't be how much would we have paid if Mario stayed. It should be how much can we save now that he's gone. Am I to believe that, in this economy, Brizzi couldn't find anybody with a PR background who would serve in his office for eight months?

I'd say with almost certainty that Brizzi didn't even try for fear that posting the job publicly would result in too many punchlines. But I'd bet with, again, almost certainty that some young upstart would come in for a $50,000 salary, the chance to throw massive money into a deferred compensation plan, and an opportunity to say (s)he managed the hardest PR campaign in Marion County history. If you survive that, what agency wouldn't hire you?

But Brizzi needed "professional" crisis management. I understand there's always going to be an overlap between the PR related to the operation of the office and the PR related to the candidate in the office. But we shouldn't have to pay for the impossible - an effort to rehabilitate Carl Brizzi's image.


Share/Save/Bookmark