The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has filed disciplinary charges against Porter Superior Court Judge Christopher A. Buckley. These charges assert that Buckley engaged in criminal conduct stemming from operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). Additionally, the commission alleges that Judge Buckley attempted to use his position as a judge to receive preferential treatment from police during the investigation that ultimately led to his arrest.
The commission specifically stated that Judge Buckley was arrested and subsequently convicted of OWI, which is classified as a class C misdemeanor. A key element of the disciplinary charges is the assertion that Buckley violated established judicial conduct. This violation reportedly occurred when he referred to his judicial position on the bench during the course of the investigation, according to one of the counts filed by the commission. This action forms a significant part of the allegations made against him.
As these proceedings unfold, Judge Buckley is not currently presiding over cases in Porter Superior Court. To ensure the continuity of judicial operations, the Supreme Court has taken action by appointing Senior Judge Michael N. Pagano. Senior Judge Pagano has been assigned to hear cases in Porter Superior Court during this period, addressing the immediate need for judicial coverage.
The ultimate authority in determining whether judicial misconduct occurred, if any is found, rests with the Supreme Court. The court possesses several pathways for addressing the filed charges against Judge Buckley. Among its options, the Supreme Court can choose to dismiss the charges entirely, bringing the matter to a close without further action. Alternatively, the court can accept or reject any disciplinary agreement that may be reached between Judge Buckley and the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, thereby influencing the resolution of the case. A further option available to the Supreme Court is the appointment of a panel of judges. This panel would be tasked with conducting a public hearing to thoroughly examine the allegations and evidence presented.
Should the Supreme Court find that misconduct did occur, it has the power to impose a range of sanctions. These potential sanctions vary in severity. The court could impose a financial fine. More stringent measures include a formal reprimand, which serves as a public censure of the judge's actions. Beyond a reprimand, the Supreme Court also has the authority to order a suspension from judicial duties, temporarily removing Judge Buckley from his position. In the most severe instances, the court could impose a permanent ban, prohibiting Judge Buckley from ever again holding judicial office within the state of Indiana.
In this disciplinary process, Judge Buckley is representing himself. He has the opportunity to formally respond to the charges within a 20-day period from the filing. However, the commission indicated that providing a response within this timeframe is not a mandatory requirement for him. The timeline for the Supreme Court's final determination and potential actions remains part of the ongoing judicial review process. The community relies on clear and factual updates regarding matters of public safety and judicial accountability, and Valparaiso Source will continue to report on developments as they become available through official channels.