On Thursday, March 19, 2026, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an order permanently banning former Franklin Circuit Court Judge J. Steven Cox from judicial service due to egregious misconduct. The court’s decision, detailed in a per curiam opinion, stems from findings that Cox engaged in ex parte communication with a criminal defendant in a Level 1 felony case and implemented a de facto policy of rejecting all written plea agreements.
The case, initiated by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, centered on Cox’s handling of the case State v. Guilfoyle. The Commission’s complaint, filed on April 3, 2025, alleged that Cox engaged in misconduct by communicating privately with the defendant, relying on that communication to make rulings, and implementing a blanket policy against plea agreements.
The Supreme Court’s investigation involved the appointment of three Special Masters, Hon. Matthew E. Sarber, Hon. Marianne Vorhees, and Hon. Kelsey Hanlon, who presided over the case and issued a 45-page report on November 14, 2025. The Masters concluded that the Commission had proven all charged counts and rule violations.
The court found that Cox’s ex parte communication with Guilfoyle, which involved a visit to the defendant’s home to discuss his physical and mental well-being, violated judicial conduct rules. The court emphasized that Cox failed to notify other parties about the visit promptly and that the communication influenced his decision to deny a psychiatric evaluation for Guilfoyle.
Regarding the plea agreements, the court acknowledged that judges have discretion in accepting or denying them. However, it found that Cox’s blanket policy against all written plea agreements, announced in August 2022, violated judicial conduct rules. The court noted that this policy not only delayed cases and wasted resources but also created a patchwork judicial system where defendants’ rights varied depending on the court.
In its decision, the Supreme Court considered several aggravating factors, including that Cox’s misconduct prejudiced the administration of justice, caused actual harm to parties in State v. Guilfoyle, and demonstrated a lack of insight regarding the impact of his misconduct. The court also noted that Cox had prior disciplinary actions, including three private cautions and a public Commission admonition.
While the Masters declined to recommend a sanction, the Commission recommended a public reprimand and a six-month prohibition on the Respondent’s ability to hold judicial office. Ultimately, the Supreme Court imposed the most severe sanction: a permanent ban from judicial service.
The opinion states:
“We cannot suspend Respondent because he is no longer on the bench. But for the foregoing reasons, we believe that preserving the integrity of the judiciary and ensuring the fair administration of justice require us to impose the maximum sanction available under the circumstances—a public reprimand and permanent ban from serving as a judicial officer.”
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
