On Tuesday, October 29, 2024, CNHI News reported that Geremy Miller, a Kokomo man facing multiple charges of child molestation, filed a motion requesting the recusal of Howard County Superior Court 1 Judge Matt Elkin. Miller’s attorney, Michael Cunningham, claims that the judge’s court reporters engaged in ex parte communication with a potential witness, which could compromise the integrity of the legal proceedings.

Miller is charged with 20 counts of child molestation and four counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, stemming from accusations that he molested two female juveniles over several years. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. In the motion, Cunningham argued that one of Judge Elkin’s court reporters may have informed the judge that Miller was suicidal after his arrest warrant was issued. This information was reportedly obtained from a former co-worker related to Miller.

Cunningham’s filing suggests that discussions among court reporters and the relative occurred before formal charges were filed against Miller, with the relative allegedly expressing her belief in Miller’s guilt. The attorney contends that these interactions create a reasonable perception of bias that could impair Judge Elkin’s impartiality in the case.

In response, Howard County Deputy Prosecutor Lisa Glancy criticized the defense’s motion as baseless and a strategy to delay the upcoming jury trial, which is set to begin on November 8. Glancy stated that the court staff made only general comments about the case and did not share specific details with Judge Elkin. She emphasized that the court reporter’s uncertainty regarding whether she relayed information about Miller’s mental state does not warrant the judge’s recusal.

Glancy further noted that court reporters do not serve as fact-finders and do not influence judicial decisions. She argued that even if the information about Miller’s alleged suicidal thoughts was communicated, it would not affect the facts of the case, nor is it unusual for a judge to hear such information.

The timing of the recusal motion has also been called into question. The depositions of Miller’s relative and two court reporters took place in July and September, yet the motion was filed in late October, shortly after Miller rejected a plea deal. Glancy suggested that this delay indicates an attempt by the defense to gain leverage in the case by postponing the trial.

 

 

Source: CNHI News