Two Marion County judges are now facing formal misconduct charges after years of delayed rulings, missed deadlines, and staff errors that officials say left criminal defendants in limbo and, in one case, contributed to a man's arrest over a conviction that should have already been cleared from his record.
The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed a three-count complaint against Marion Superior Court 9 Judge Geoffrey A. Gaither under case number 26S-JD-311, and five complaints against Marion Superior Court 23 Judge Jose D. Salinas under case number 26S-JD-312, according to the Indiana Judicial Branch. As WIBC 93.1 FM reports, the commission says Gaither delayed decisions in some family and juvenile cases for months or years, with seven cases left unresolved long enough that another judge had to take them over. Both jurists now have 20 days to file formal responses to the charges.
Gaither's Court Struggled With Basic Case Management
Per the commission's findings, Gaither's courtroom had ongoing problems scheduling hearings, updating records, and filing court documents, and he failed to ensure that a magistrate and his court staff kept up with their work. The commission reportedly worked with Gaither for about four years to try to fix the problems before filing charges. Gaither is represented in the proceedings by defense attorney Gregory H. Coleman, per the Judicial Branch's filing.
The charges arrive months after Gaither's March 2026 retention review. He ultimately survived a Marion County Judicial Selection Committee retention vote by a single vote, according to The Indiana Citizen, which notes that recent state law changes had newly empowered the committee to block unsuitable judges from the retention ballot. Before joining the Marion Superior Court bench on January 1, 2021, after an appointment from then-Governor Eric Holcomb on November 10, 2020, Gaither had spent 25 years as a senior magistrate in the Marion County Juvenile Court, starting in 1995, presiding over delinquency and child welfare dockets.
Salinas Charges Tie Staff Errors To Real Harm
The commission filed five complaints against Salinas, stating that he failed to properly oversee his court staff and failed to act quickly enough in dozens of criminal cases. According to the commission, Salinas's court system showed criminal records that should have already been cleared, and about 40 cases in his court had missing dates or other problems. In one instance cited by the commission, an old conviction that should have been removed played a role in a man's later arrest.
The commission also states that Salinas ordered a mental health evaluation for a defendant but failed to hold a required hearing on whether that defendant was capable of standing trial; the defendant ultimately went to trial and was convicted. Separately, some criminal cases involving Salinas were reportedly thrown out because they took too long to move forward. The statement of charges describes court-entry problems that potentially resulted in delayed releases of incarcerated defendants and lists missing court dates, orders, and unexpunged cases, with two of the five counts against him focused specifically on staff management, according to WBIW. Salinas is represented by defense attorney James Bell.
Salinas took the bench in January 2007.
What Happens Next Under Indiana's Judicial Discipline Rules
Under Indiana's judicial-discipline process, only the Indiana Supreme Court holds the authority to determine whether a judge committed misconduct and to impose final punishment, which can range from a public reprimand or fines to a temporary suspension or a permanent removal from the bench. The commission investigates alleged misconduct, while the Supreme Court has final authority over the outcome. The commission that filed these charges was created under Article 7, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution and has seven members.
In March 2014, Judge Kimberly J. Brown was stripped of her position following 45 misconduct counts tied to delayed inmate releases and court backlogs, according to Ballotpedia. Brown had been suspended before her eventual removal.
In a related but separate case, Vigo County Judge Matthew Sheehan was publicly reprimanded and apologized for taking too long to rule in a divorce case; he accepted the reprimand and will not face formal charges.
