Winchester, Indiana – The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has formally filed disciplinary charges against Randolph County Superior Court Judge Dale Arnett, citing multiple alleged failures in performing his judicial responsibilities and overseeing court operations.
In a public filing titled the “Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges” (Case No. 25S-JD-198), the commission lays out eleven separate counts of alleged misconduct. The document, now available as a matter of public record through the Appellate Clerk’s Office, accuses Judge Arnett of violating provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct in ways that “did not promote public confidence in the judiciary” and demonstrated a lack of diligence in executing judicial duties.
According to the commission, which consists of seven members tasked with investigating allegations of judicial misconduct across the state, Judge Arnett failed to promptly set hearing dates for individuals who had been arrested. As a result, those individuals allegedly remained in jail longer than necessary. Additionally, the commission claims that Judge Arnett’s inaction in certain criminal cases led to dismissals due to procedural delays.
The charges also criticize Judge Arnett’s alleged inability to supervise his court staff effectively. The commission asserts that these failures represent not just administrative shortcomings but violations serious enough to warrant judicial discipline.
As part of the filing, the commission also submitted a Verified Petition for Interim Suspension, requesting the Indiana Supreme Court to suspend Judge Arnett from his current duties with pay while the matter is under review. The Supreme Court is now tasked with reviewing the petition and determining what, if any, actions should be taken in response to the commission’s request.
Judge Arnett is not currently presiding over cases. On April 23, 2025, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an order appointing a Judge Pro Tempore to oversee the Randolph County Superior Court after Judge Arnett took a leave of absence.
Though Judge Arnett is not obligated to respond to the charges, he is allowed to file a formal answer within 20 days. He is represented by attorney Donald McClellan, who has not publicly commented on the matter. McClellan can be reached at [email protected] for inquiries related to Judge Arnett’s defense.
The final decision in this case will rest with the Indiana Supreme Court, which holds the ultimate authority to determine whether judicial misconduct has occurred and what disciplinary action, if any, should follow. The Court’s options include dismissing the charges entirely, accepting or rejecting a disciplinary agreement between the commission and the judge, appointing a panel to conduct a public hearing, or imposing penalties. Those penalties could range from a formal reprimand to suspension, or even a permanent ban on holding judicial office in Indiana.
More detailed information about the commission and its procedures can be found on its official website, where updates about this and other judicial conduct cases are published.
As the case proceeds, it raises broader concerns about transparency, accountability, and public trust in the state’s judicial system—especially in smaller counties where court resources and oversight may be more limited. The allegations outlined in the filing suggest that missteps in case management and administrative oversight may have had serious consequences for the rights of defendants and the overall function of the court.
The next steps in the case will depend on whether Judge Arnett files a response and how the Indiana Supreme Court chooses to proceed.
