Former Superior I judge de-frocked for boatload of misconduct
This article is brought to you by Solidarity Community Federal Credit Union. Help us stock the shelves for neighbors in need! From September 8–28, 2025, both Solidarity locations will be collecting non-perishable food items for the Kokomo Rescue Mission’s Fall Food Drive. You can bring your donations anytime during regular business hours at the 201 E. Southway Blvd. or 214 N. Dixon Road locations. Every can counts!
#FoodDrive #KokomoRescueMission #EveryCanCounts
Matthew Elkin has been removed from the bench of Howard Superior Court I by the Indiana State Supreme Court. In a lengthy ruling issued on Sept. 11, the high court described a wide array of instances of misconduct which led to the former judge’s removal.
Elkin has been ordered to vacate the bench by Sept. 30, 2025.
Disciplinary charges were filed against Elkin on March 23, 2025, by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications. According to that filing, Elkin had “demonstrated an inability to perform judicial and administrative duties competently, diligently, and promptly, and acted in a manner that did not promote public confidence in the judiciary.”
The commission brought forth nine separate charges against Elkin, alleging that he violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to avoid impropriety of the appearance of such. The commission alleged that he “did not treat all litigants fairly and with dignity, did not have order and decorum in proceedings before his court, and in one instance, failed to ensure that his court staff acted in a manner consistent with the judge’s obligations under the Judicial Code.”
The allegations further stated that Elkin had abused the prestige of his office for personal gain and placed his personal interests above that of the court. He was given 20 days to answer the charges.
The details of the allegations were not made public at that time, but in its ruling on Sept. 11, the state supreme court withheld little. Elkin, represented by attorney Jennifer Lukemeyer, stipulated to the facts presented and agreed to the sanction by the court, which forces his resignation and a permanent ban from judicial service.
Elkin, a former public defender for Howard County, was elected to office in 2022 and began serving as Howard Superior Court I Judge in January 2023, which included oversight of the county’s Drug Court and Re-Entry Court, known as problem-solving courts (PSC). His violations began immediately, as he did not submit a complete list of cases in which he had a conflict of interest.
The court found that Elkin failed to disqualify himself from at least 11 cases in which he had represented participants in the problem-solving courts as a public defender that later came before him as judge. In fact, his recusals did not come until after he was notified of an inquiry into his misconduct.
Unfortunately, the recusals were perhaps the least egregious acts detailed in the court’s findings. In October 2023, Elkin debased the court by engaging in “a ruse he dubbed ‘Game or Jail.’”
“The Re-Entry Court team notified (Elkin) that participant R.P. had violated a PSC rule,” the ruling states. “During the October 26 Re-Entry Court hearing, (Elkin) directed the court's security officer to handcuff F.H., another participant. (Elkin) told R.P. and F.H. that if R.P. lied to (Elkin) about the rule violation, F.H. would go to jail. At the time, F.H. had not committed any rule violations, and neither F.H. nor R.P. was in custody.”
“If I smack the sh*t out of you right now, what chemicals get dumped in your brain? The exact same chemicals (Tom Brady) experiences when he wins the Super Bowl.” - Elkin to a domestic violence survivor
In another instance, Elkin was confirmed to have demeaned and ridiculed court participants standing before him in hearings. In one case, addressing a domestic violence survivor, Elkin stated:
“Do you know who Tom Brady is? How many Super Bowls? Seven Super Bowls he's won. When Tom Brady wins a Super Bowl, his brain is filled with all kinds of neurochemicals. All right? And he gets to scream, you know, I'm going to Disney World․ Now, I know he's not married, he's not in a relationship anymore, but what he used to be able to do is he got two big brain rushes because he got to go ‘I won the Super Bowl’ and then the next thought is ‘I get to f*ck the supermodel.’ Okay?
“If I smack the sh*t out of you right now, what chemicals get dumped in your brain? The exact same chemicals he experiences when he wins the Super Bowl. Did you know that? So, the whole thing is every time I beat you up or you beat me up, we won the Super Bowl․ So, if I smack you in the head and you feel the exact same way so you can enjoy the relationship. That's what happens.
“That's the truth. That's why women don't leave. It gets worse. He experiences it once because he won the Super Bowl. You can cause yourself to experience that emotion at least two more times after you've been hit. One is if you feel guilty about having had your a*s kicked, the exact same chemicals dump into your brain. You feel real shame over it. Then, if you get angry over the fact that this person did it to you, it happens a third time. Here's the deal, I can train an entire lifetime for one shot at winning the Super Bowl and experiencing that elation, or I can have somebody kick my a*s and I can do it three times. Which is easier?
“You don't deserve this chance. You don't deserve it. I know what's wrong with you and I know how to fix you. You're not even my property yet. Do you know that you're the Department of Correction's property for 98 days, right? No, six months. Right?”
Other inappropriate behavior when addressing participant in PSC hearings included:
Displaying a plastic bag to represent adult diapers while discussing a participant’s work release violation,
Attempting to influence a participant by displaying a sign that read “watching you,”
Requiring a participant being terminated from a PSC to state that he “sexually violated himself with a vape,”
Told another participant that he was “making sh*t up in his brain,”
Ordered a participant to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases and discussed medical conditions the participant could have if they were “on the wrong side of a test,”
And referred to a participant as “stupid,” which could have been interpreted as a description of the person rather than their actions.
“You have more convictions than the average child molester in this country. You are the one-third of the one percent of worst people in the planet.” - Elkin, to a defendant seeking a sentence modification.
Elkins’ offending behavior was not limited to the problem-solving courts. In a criminal hearing in February 2023, the former judge stated to a defendant seeking a sentence modification on a felony drug offense:
“How many people in America have as many felony convictions as you? There's 300 million people in this country. How many people have as many felony convictions as you? Here's the thing that should make your skin crawl. You have more convictions than the average child molester in this country. You are the one-third of the one percent of worst people in the planet.
“Of every person who's asked for modification here, you are the least likely to be successful. No matter what your success has been at the DOC for however limited period of time, you are the least likely to be successful. I want that to sink into you, and I want you to think about that when we evaluate you.”
Elkin proved to be just as unprofessional in his conduct away from the bench. In October 2023, the former judge met with a PSC participant at his former law office. During the conversation, he disclosed confidential information about other PSC participants and disparaged them, and demeaned members of his PSC team.
The ruling also found that Elkin displayed a certain level of paranoia, alleging that there were “moles” on the PSC teams. He stipulated to having personally followed team members outside of the courtroom and also had them followed by a third party.
Elkin was found to have played favorites from the bench. In one case, Elkin offered housing and other benefits to a female participant in one of the problem-solving courts, favoring the participant over others in the court.
“When (the participant) needed housing, (Elkin) notified her that his wife had a rental home she could use,” the high court stated. “(Elkin’s) wife later entered into a lease with (the participant) but did not collect rent payments for a period of time.
“(Elkin) and his wife helped (the participant) clean out and paint the rental home. (Elkin’s) wife purchased clothing for (the participant’s) children and gave (the participant) parenting advice. (Elkin) also opted not to sanction (the participant) for having a vape, a PSC rule violation.”
In another incidence of favoritism, Elkin found a PSC participant in contempt for violating drug court rules. Once the participant was incarcerated, Elkin and the drug court coordinator worked together to store the participant’s vehicle at one of Elkin’s rental properties, and obtained the participant’s rental deposit from his landlord on his behalf.
Elkin also was found to have arranged for an escort to a medical appointment for one PSC participant who had been sanctioned by the court and should have been immediately placed into custody. He also offered rides to at least six PSC participants in his personal vehicle and allowed one participant to use his personal vehicle to accumulate driving hours necessary to obtain a driver’s license. Elkin even rents a car for one PSC participant with his personal credit card.
Other instances of favoritism included the possible transfer of an $8,000 gift certificate for a wedding dress, and the use of PSC participants to clean of the home of another PSC participant; an activity in which Elkin personally participated.
Having set a precedent for preferential treatment, one of Elkin’s probation officers rented a property to a re-entry court participant with the former judge’s approval. However, Elkin admitted to not properly supervising the probation officer, who conducted home visits to the property.
The list of charges concluded with allegations that Elkin may have reimbursed himself for PSC training with unauthorized funds. This, and other undisclosed allegations, were not investigated as Elkin agreed to repay the funds, resign from office, and be permanently banned from judicial service.
“(Elkin’s) actions directly impacted the accessibility of social services and substance use treatment in Howard County.” — Indiana State Supreme Court
The court listed nine separate rules of judicial conduct that Elkin was found to have violated. As part of the agreement reached between the commission and Elkin, the high court allowed Elkin to retain his law license.
The high court’s conclusion was particularly damning in its description of the damage wrought by Elkin through his inappropriate behavior.
“The consequences of successfully completing — or, conversely, being unsuccessfully terminated from — a PSC are significant for participants,” the court stated. “And a presiding judge's demeanor has an outsized impact on a participant's success. (Elkin) appeared to understand this as he wielded his position of power like a tyrant, attempting to intimidate participants and team members alike.
“While he offered the proverbial shirt off of his back to some, he shamed and humiliated others. These behaviors were in direct contradiction of the collaborative, non-adversarial PSC approach.
“(Elkin’s) actions also threatened the success of the Howard County PSCs as a whole, as Indiana's Problem-Solving Courts Rule 7(a)(4)3 allows for decertification if a PSC operates in a manner that adversely affects the health and safety of any participant. Indeed, Howard County's Drug and Re-Entry courts were temporarily suspended from accepting new participants due to (Elkin’s) misconduct.
“In other words, (Elkin’s) actions directly impacted the accessibility of social services and substance use treatment in Howard County.”
The court did consider certain mitigating circumstances in accepting the agreement and issuing sanctions.
“The parties note that (Elkin) has accepted responsibility for his actions, cooperated with the Commission throughout its investigation, and completed courses via Thought Kitchen to address his demeanor,” the high court stated. “Further, (Elkin) had no prior attorney discipline throughout his long career, which he primarily has dedicated to public service.
“These facts suggest (Elkin) is not beyond redemption. So, although a permanent ban from judicial service is necessary here to protect the integrity of the judicial system, we concur with the parties that he may maintain his law license.”
Elkin must tender his resignation to the office of the Governor of the State of Indiana no later than Sept. 30, and the governor will appoint his replacement, who will serve the remainder of the judicial term through Dec. 31, 2028.