Court Opinion

ID: 9505360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:04:07.617897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:24.678355
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of the Court and write separately only to state the rather straightforward proposition that a judicial officer who facilitates judge-shopping does damage to the impartiality of the judiciary and violates the Canons.
We have made this point before. In a recent case, lawyers who did not care for a ruling received down the hall filed a habe-as petition in a different court seeking to get relief from an order of incarceration. The judge who entertained the habeas petition (without notice, it might be added, as in this case) was, of course, a general jurisdiction judge with subject matter jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions. We disciplined the judge because he had no business participating in a case already underway in another courtroom. Matter of Johnson, (15 N.E.2d 370 (Ind.1999).
The situation before us is roughly the same. Allowing such manipulation rightly leads to public cynicism about whether the judiciary is impartial, and we judges should not be party to it.