Karen Celestino-Horseman: Voters will have ultimate say in councilor’s fate

When a person commits a legal wrong, we have a justice system that is empowered to mete out the appropriate punishment. Civil actions might require the defendant to pay money, and criminal wrongs can result in the loss of freedom through incarceration. But what happens when the alleged victim does not file a lawsuit or make a criminal complaint? 

Recently, a member of the City-County Council was accused of domestic abuse and sexual assault, very serious allegations. Another member of the council has demanded that the accused be held accountable by the council, apparently basing his condemnation of the accused solely upon a conversation he had with the woman making the accusations. As a lawyer who believes in the rule of law, this bothers me for many reasons.

In law, there is direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Think of it like this: If you see the snow falling, that is direct evidence that the snow fell. But if you discover snow on the ground when you wake up, that is circumstantial evidence that the snow fell. 

Unless there is reliable, direct evidence that the crime was committed—e.g., the crime was committed in front of council members—the council is not equipped to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding private actions taken outside of government. Instead, to adjudge the councilor guilty or not guilty, circumstantial evidence would have to be presented and weighed, and the council has no system or process in place that would support such a hearing.

As a lawyer, I refuse to blindly “believe the victim.” People lie, and they do it for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately, in my cases where the alleged victim lied, the justice system worked, thanks to due process. In the case of the councilor, should the council or the caucus declare him guilty and hold him accountable, he will be forever stigmatized and will have been condemned with no means of appeal.

While the caucus itself has very broad power to expel a councilor, just because you can does not mean you should. If the caucus did expel the councilor, how would it know whether the decision is a correct one without having proof the allegations are true? It is one thing to expel a member based upon actions taken within the caucus or directly involving another member of the caucus (both direct evidence), but it is another matter entirely to pass judgment on actions taken outside the caucus and of which the caucus has no firsthand knowledge.

The news story leads one to assume the protective order that was entered was an ex parte temporary order of protection. Ex parte means the order was issued without hearing from the accused. A subsequent hearing at which all parties would be given the opportunity to be heard would then result in the granting or denial of the protective order.  In other words, a temporary order that was subsequently dismissed by the complainant before the hearing is not a finding of guilt.

I am in no way defending the alleged actions of the councilor. I find the accusations deeply disturbing. What I am saying is that if a councilor wants to express his personal opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of another councilor, that is totally within his right. And while a court of law might be precluded from acting, the court of public opinion might yet extract a toll. I have no doubt that, when the next election rolls around, an opponent will make certain the electorate is informed of the accusations. The voters will then decide if the councilor should go or stay.•

__________

Celestino-Horseman is an Indianapolis attorney. Send comments to [email protected].

Click here for more Forefront columns.