By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
September 24, 2026
The judicial misconduct charges recently filed against two Marion County Superior Court judges – including one who is on the November ballot for retention – came after years of issues and concerns with caseload management and staff supervision, raising questions about the unhurried pace of such disciplinary investigations.
Charges were filed on Sept. 14 against Judge Geoffrey Gaither, who is running for retention, and Judge Jose Salinas by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications. The Qualifications Commission alleges the jurists each violated several rules of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, including failing to perform their “judicial and administrative duties competently, diligently and promptly.”
Gaither, who presides over family and juvenile cases, has been charged with three counts of judicial misconduct. The commission alleges he did not set hearings or issue rulings in a timely manner, which led to several “lazy judge” motions being filed against him and some of his cases having to be reassigned to other judges. Gaither also faces accusations of inadequately supervising his court staff, which resulted in numerous administrative errors and delays, and neglecting to properly supervise a magistrate judge, who failed to promptly issue orders.
Salinas, who presides over a criminal docket of misdemeanors and Level 6 felony cases, has been charged with five counts of judicial misconduct. The commission alleges he engaged in a pattern of not taking timely action in more than 40 criminal cases, causing delays and some cases to be dismissed for failing to meet speedy trial deadlines. In addition, Salinas has been accused of failing to conduct a competency hearing, promptly rule on expungement petitions and adequately supervise his court staff, which led to orders not being entered into the case management system and some individuals being held in jail long after they had been ordered to be released.
The Qualifications Commission has requested the Indiana Supreme Court appoint three masters to conduct separate public hearings for Gaither and Salinas. Also, the commission is asking for sanctions to be imposed if the judges are found to have committed misconduct, but it did not request any specific punishment.
The statements of charges filed against each judge with the Supreme Court detail repeated problematic conduct that had continued for years. According to the documents, the commission’s investigation of Salinas found missing case entries on the court’s docket from Aug. 28, 2015, to Aug. 21, 2025. Issues with Gaither’s caseload were first reported to the commission in late 2021 and during his retention hearing before the Marion County Judicial Retention Committee in March, he revealed he was under investigation by the commission.
The Indiana Supreme Court defended the Qualifications Commission’s pace, saying due process requires several steps to be taken when investigating ethical concerns raised about judicial officers. These steps include consideration of the materials collected during the investigation, along with providing notice to the judges of the allegations and giving them an opportunity to respond.
Joel Schumm, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law clinical professor, said the Qualifications Commission needed to be deliberative and thorough in any investigation of judges. Still, he conceded that many nonlawyers might be astonished that a judicial officer who faced years of allegations of documented misconduct was allowed to remain on the bench when private-sector employees would likely be terminated in less than a month.
“I would be nice if (the judicial disciplinary process) moved faster because the stakes are as important or more important than that of a lot of people at a job that in a day or a week or a month (they could be) removed or disciplined,” Schumm said.
One of the first complaints against Gaither was filed by his colleagues on the Marion Superior Court Executive Committee in late 2021, who were concerned about the number of cases he had pending on his docket. The committee not only found Gaither had more than 100 items in his daily queue requiring judicial action but was also fielding complaints from lawyers about the delays in scheduling hearings.
The Qualifications Commission responded by sending a letter to Gaither in March 2022, encouraging him to get assistance to address his backlog. In September 2022, the commission opened an investigation and in August 2023, it entered into an agreement with Gaither to close the investigation as long as he sought assistance and training in managing his caseload.However, the problems in Gaither’s court persisted and appeared to be spreading. In July 2025, one of his former magistrate judges had 98 motions or orders pending and 391 cases with incomplete tasks, without future hearing dates or with open warrants.
In December 2025, the Qualifications Commission withdrew from the deferred resolution agreement and reopened its investigation of Gaither.
The charges filed by the commission listed several instances where Gaither allegedly failed to issue orders which delayed the resolution of cases and as a result of his “dereliction of duties,” seven special judges had to be appointed to handle some of those matters.
Cases that were removed from Gaither’s docket and given to another judge included a petition for a successor guardian of a minor that was pending for more than six months, and a father’s petition to modify custody, parenting time, and support had been pending for more than 60 days.
Other stalled cases remained in Gaither’s court docket, including two which had hearings in 2025, but as of the date the commission’s charges were filed, no orders in those cases had been issued.
In November 2024, Gaither presided over a hearing to modify child support but had not issued a written order by August 2025. When the mother filed a pro se motion seeking the order, Gaither held another hearing on the matter in October 2025 but did not issue the order until March 2026. Also, in another case, Gaither failed to issue an order of dissolution of marriage for more than 11 months.
Along with allegations that Gaither failed to supervise his magistrate judge, the charges assert he also did not supervise his staff, which resulted in hearing dates either not being scheduled or delayed. Moreover, when Gaither described the training on the court’s case management system to be “ineffective,” he did not secure additional training for his staff or seek out guidance from his judicial colleagues.
The charging document for Salinas reveals that in September 2023, Qualifications Commission was investigating all the judges in the criminal division of the Marion County Superior Court system. Administrative errors were alleged to have continued to cause “adverse consequences for litigants,” including delayed releases from jail.
Based on the judges’ cooperation and implementation of a set of recommendations, the Qualifications Commission dismissed the investigation in June 2024. However, Salinas’ court still struggled and in August 2025, an investigation was opened, according to the commission’s statement of charges.
Salinas is alleged to have failed to supervise his staff to ensure that cases and orders were entered properly into the case management system. As a result, the statement of charges alleges, two defendants were held in jail for weeks after they should have been released and around October 2025, Salinas received notice that 427 cases were awaiting completion of the expungement process.
Also, missing entries and orders caused a warrant to be issued four years after a defendant had been charged with burglary. In addition, two defendants waited years to have their hearings scheduled and eventually the state dismissed the cases because Salinas failed to try the cases in a timely manner.
The Qualifications Commission’s investigation found that although Salinas had granted the state’s motion for a psychiatric examination to determine a defendant’s competence to stand trial, an order was never entered into the case management system. Consequently, the defendant, who represented himself, was tried and convicted of sexual battery, a Level 6 felony, without having undergone a psychological assessment.
Moreover, the investigation turned up several cases in which amended judgments for alternative misdemeanor sentences were not entered into the system. Included were two cases where the defendants had been successfully discharged from probation, but Salinas had not issued their amended judgments until more than 1,500 days later.
The Indiana Supreme Court will ultimately determine what, if any, sanctions Gaither and Salinas will face.
Both judges now have 20 days in which they may file their answers to the charges. After that window has closed, the Supreme Court will have 30 days to appoint three masters, who must be either sitting or retired Indiana judges, to preside over the public disciplinary hearings for each judge. At the conclusion of those hearings, the masters will submit a report to the Supreme Court, which could include recommendations for sanctions if they find the judges violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Each judge will have the option of trying to settle with the Qualifications Commission and enter into a conditional agreement, which would include an agreed-upon punishment, at any time during this process. Such an agreement would have to be approved by the Supreme Court.
The sanctions could range from a reprimand to a suspension to removal from the bench.
In 2025, the Qualifications Commission had 40 cases in which it either required judges to respond to allegations of misconduct or launched investigations. Of the cases that were closed last year, most were resolved with the commission issuing either advisory letters or private cautions. The commission filed charges against two judges which were resolved with conditional agreements, including one that imposed a 30-day suspension without pay.
Gaither’s case could remain unresolved through Election Day on Nov. 3, potentially leaving voters to make a decision on whether to retain him without knowing what, if any, sanction might be imposed.
Schumm questioned how many Marion County voters would know that Gaither is facing misconduct charges or even take the time to do research on judicial candidates – especially since upwards of 15 judges will appear the ballot for retention. Moreover, he did not foresee a situation where the voters might retain Gaither but later the Supreme Court would boot him from the bench.
“It’s very uncommon that a judge gets removed,” Schumm said. “Usually, if someone gets a 30-day suspension, that’s pretty remarkable. What’s more common is people get public reprimands.”
Dwight Adams, an editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.
The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org.
