Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard initiated an
investigation of Dan Brewington’s writings on August 24, 2009. At that time Judge James D. Humphrey still
presided over custody matters concerning Brewington’s divorce decree, where
Judge Humphrey terminated all of Dan’s parenting time until Dan received a
mental health evaluation to determine whether he posed a possible danger to the
children, ex-wife, or Dan himself. It
was also during that time when Judge Humphrey claimed he had a handgun
repaired, contacted his children’s schools (one being Hanover College),
contacted a number of law enforcement agencies, purchased a home security system,
received police escorts for he and his wife, and had his home monitored by the
local police department; all due do the fear of harm from Dan Brewington. Although not argued during trial, Prosecutor
Negangard publicly stated that Dan Brewington threatened to commit arson
against Judge Humphrey prior to Humphrey ruling on Brewington’s divorce
decree. During Dan Brewington’s trial
Humphrey testified he sought the advice of Adrienne Meiring, Counsel for Judicial Qualifications Commission
for the Indiana Supreme Court.
Humphrey explained Meiring was there “to help give advice to judges
regarding ethical issues.” Humphrey
contacted Meiring to determine if he should continue to preside over Brewington’s
case even though Humphrey claimed to fear for the lives of his family and while
actively participating in Negangard’s secret investigation of Brewington’s
alleged threats against Humphrey.
Humphrey testified that after discussing the matter with Adrienne Meiring, “[O]ur decision
was to remain on the case because if I recuse myself some other judge would be
put on the case and have to deal with the same thing.” (Trial
Transcripts, pg. 254) When asked by Prosecutor Negangard if he had waited
to recuse himself at the appropriate time, Humphrey replied “I did.” Judge Humphrey’s interpretation of “appropriate
time” consisted of 10 months of continuing to preside over Brewington’s case,
obstructing Dan’s ability to be heard in Humphrey’s court and obtain an
evaluation, while recusing himself just a week before the June 14, 2010 hearing
on the appointment of a psychiatrist to evaluate Dan.
The Indiana
Judicial Canons or Code of Judicial Conduct are rules and guidelines
Indiana Judges are supposed to follow.
We know this because Judge Humphrey and Negangard discuss the topic on
page 324 of the grand jury transcripts:
NEGANGARD: And uh, the manner, if you could for the jury,
tell them, if a judge, is there canons that judges are supposed to follow?
HUMPHREY: There is.
NEGANGARD: And what are those called?
HUMPHREY: The code of judicial conduct.
The key word in Negangard’s question appears to be “supposed.”
Rule 2.11 of the Indiana Judicial Code
of Conduct reads as follows:
RULE 2.11 Disqualification (A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself
in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality* might reasonably be
questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the
judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.
The Commentary section of Canon 2.11 states:
[1] Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the
judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any
of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (6) apply. In many jurisdictions,
the term “recusal” is used interchangeably with the term “disqualification.”
[2] A judge's
obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required
applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed.
Judge Humphrey and Adrienne Meiring, Counsel to
the Indiana Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that taking several preventative
measures to prevent Judge Humphrey’s family from being injured or dying at the
hands of Dan Brewington did not qualify as a personal bias that “might
reasonably” question Judge Humphrey’s ability to remain impartial in continuing
to preside over Dan Brewington’s custody proceedings. Even if Humphrey and Meiring believed
Humphrey could remain impartial, despite the fact Humphrey claimed he was
actively working to prevent Brewington from abducting and/or murdering his
family, Humphrey and Meiring ignored another key component listed in Comment
[5] of Canon 2.11:
[5] A judge should disclose on the record information that
the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider
relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes
there is no basis for disqualification.
So even if Judge James D. Humphrey and Adrienne Meiring
believed Humphrey could remain impartial despite Humphrey’s “fears” of Dan
Brewington, the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct states Judge Humphrey had a
duty to disclose to Brewington on the record that Brewington caused him to fear
for his life. But in revisiting Judge
Humphrey’s recollection of his and Adrienne Meiring’s decision, the advice of
Counsel for the Indiana Supreme Court wasn’t about protecting the rights of the
Dan Brewington’s children to be able to get back with their father in an
unbiased Indiana Court; Humphrey testified their decision for Humphrey to
remain on the case was to protect other judges from having to deal with Brewington
for the time span of ten months; the time Judge Humphrey testified was
appropriate for recusal. (Trial
Transcripts pg. 254.)
People should hope Judge James D. Humphrey was being less
than truthful in his testimony during the trial of Dan Brewington regarding his
discussions with Adrienne Meiring because it would be horrific to think the
advising counsel for the Indiana Supreme Court would advise a judge to involve
himself in a conspiracy to obstruct justice in a civil case in order to protect
other judges from a civil litigant. Much
worse than that is the notion Judge Humphrey would remain on Brewington’s case
in an effort not to disturb Negangard’s efforts in prosecuting Dan Brewington
on behalf of Judge Humphrey. This is how
the Office of Judicial Qualifications of the Indiana Supreme Court advises
judges in the State of Indiana; at least according to Judge Humphrey. So by his own accounts, the decision of Judge
James D. Humphrey and Adrienne Meiring was to deny Dan Brewington the ability
to be reunited with his children in any timely fashion, which is abusive to Dan’s
children. In October 2009 , Judge
Humphrey told Brewington he didn’t have jurisdiction to hear matters in Dan’s
case while Dan was appealing Humphrey’s decision, which was blatantly
false. When Brewington retained a lawyer
in March 2010, Humphrey suddenly recalled he did have jurisdiction to hear
matters and set a hearing for June 14, 2010 on the approval of a psychiatrist
to evaluate Dan. On June 9, 2010, just
five days prior to the hearing, the orders were filed in Judge Humphrey’s
recusal from the case; the “appropriate” time for Humphrey to withdraw as
decided by Humphrey and Adrienne Meiring, Counsel for Judicial Qualifications
of the Indiana Supreme Court. Humphrey
and Meiring’s decision Humphrey remaining on Brewington’s case made it
impossible for Dan to have an evaluator appointed until January 24, 2011. Brewington was arrested soon after the
appointment and unable to be evaluated until after his release from prison on
September 5, 2013. Ironically, during
the grand jury proceedings and criminal trial Dearborn County Prosecutor F.
Aaron Negangard and Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop kept rehashing the
point that Dan Brewington never went through with an evaluation in an effort to
be reunited with his children; all the while knowing that Judge James D.
Humphrey, upon the advice of Adrienne Meiring, continued to remain on
Brewington’s case and obstruct Dan’s ability to seek an evaluation. When pressed about the topic of whether
Brewington sought the approval of an evaluator during the course of Humphrey’s
involvement in the case, Humphrey and Brewington’s public defender Bryan
Barrett had the following exchange (Trial
Transcripts pg. 261-262):
MR. BARRETT: The prosecutor asked you about whether or not
Mr. Brewington ever sought approval for a mental health evaluator pursuant to
your order in the final decree. Do you recall that?
JUDGE HUMPHREY: I do.
MR. BARRETT: And did he ask the court to set a hearing on
that or did he submit a name?
JUDGE HUMPHREY: It seems to me that toward the end of me
being on the case that something about that may have come up and I think one of
the issues that had to be dealt with was whether or not I had any jurisdiction
at that time to do anything because again once the record is submitted to the
Court of Appeals, I'm not sure that the trial Court retained any jurisdiction
at that time. And if I remember correctly counsel, I think I issued an order
and said exactly that I'm not sure we have any jurisdiction to do anything with
it but if counsel has any legal authority to indicate that I could that I would
consider.
MR. BARRETT: Okay.
JUDGE HUMPHREY: I think that's how I responded to it.
The irony of the situation is throughout the course of the
trial, the prosecution touted the accolades, experience, and respectability of
the Honorable Judge James D. Humphrey, but when it came testifying about a
subject that might be beneficial to Brewington, Humphrey’s memory and esteemed
professional qualities somehow faded. [See
10/24/2011 News Release from Indiana State Bar Association re: Humphrey
receiving Outstanding Judge Award.
Article claims Humphrey goes “out of his way to check on the progress”
of young attorneys and “recommends useful texts and even keeps copies available
for loan,” and “makes himself available for practice tips when appropriate.” Humphrey received this praise for providing young
lawyers with advice and educational material, yet Humphrey claimed he did not
know simple appellate procedure giving him the jurisdiction to allow Dan
Brewington to comply with the demands of Humphrey’s own order so that
Brewington could be reunited with his children.] Not only did Humphrey claim he did not know
the rules of procedure pertaining to a trial court’s jurisdiction of a case
while on appeal, but he failed to remember setting the hearing on the approval
of Brewington’s mental health evaluator. Even more, Humphrey failed to recall the
purpose of the hearing he scheduled and vacated as well. [If Judge Humphrey truly believed that
appealing the divorce decree stripped his trial court of jurisdiction of
enforcing his own ruling, then Judge Humphrey terminated Dan Brewington’s
parenting time knowing that if Brewington appealed the decision, it would be
well over a year before Brewington could even begin to fulfill Humphrey’s
requirements necessary for Dan to be reunited with his daughters. In his order
filed 10/13/2009, Humphrey informed Brewington he needed to seek permission
from the Appellate Court for Judge Humphrey to be able to enforce the orders of
his court. In an order
filed 10/23/2009, denying a contempt petition filed by Brewington’s
ex-wife, Humphrey stated that Brewington’s ex-wife did not have to seek
permission from the Appellate Court if she could “show authority to [Humphrey’s]
Court that it retains jurisdiction to hear this matter pending outcome of the
appeal.” When Brewington hired a lawyer
to file a motion, filed 3/11/2010, to approve
Dr. Henry Waite MD for a psychiatric evaluation, Humphrey granted a
hearing. Humphrey, whom
claims to have graduated Cum Laude from Indiana University School of Law,
either alleges that he was unaware that Appellate Rule
39 gave him jurisdiction to enforce the judgment and orders of his court or
Humphrey, who had presided over family court cases since 1998, was simply allowing Brewington’s children to remain fatherless while
Humphrey forced non-attorney Brewington to figure out that he just had to tell Judge
Humphrey Appellate Rule 39 gave the trial court jurisdiction. Humphrey sent Brewington on a wild goose
chase in researching how to inappropriately petition the Appellate Court when
all Dan had to do was say, “Appellate Rule 39 gives you the authority, Your
Honor.”] If Humphrey would have stated
Brewington was actively pursuing an evaluation, it would have shot holes in
Prosecutor Negangard’s case and added validity to Brewington’s online
criticisms of the Indiana Court System.
But by keeping quiet, Humphrey allowed the prosecution to continue to
tell the jury that Dan Brewington did not care about his daughters. In his closing statements to the grand jury,
Sheriff Kreinhop even went as far to say, “I don't think, of course it's my
opinion, but I don't think [Dan] wanted to really be with his children.”
The events described in this blog only emphasize the
importance of questioning the judicial system, which is exactly what landed Dan
Brewington in prison for 2.5 years. Feel
free to contact ethics and
disciplinary officials at the Indiana Supreme Court. Please contact Adrienne Meiring, Counsel for
Judicial Qualifications of the Indiana Supreme Court, to express any concerns
about how the Judicial Qualifications Commission advises judges not to follow
the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct. If
it is determined that Adrienne Meiring did not advise Dearborn County Circuit
Judge James D. Humphrey to continue presiding over a civil case involving a
litigant whom Judge Humphrey claimed might try to murder Humphrey’s own family,
then please encourage the State of Indiana to take the appropriate actions
against James D. Humphrey for lying under oath in an attempt to bring further
harm to Dan Brewington.
No comments:
Post a Comment