High Judgement: Formal Disciplinary Charges made against John Plummer.
BEDFORD — Lawrence County Superior Court I Judge John M. Plummer III is facing formal disciplinary charges from the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications over allegations of illegal drug use and possession of marijuana, along with claims that he was not fully candid during the resulting investigation.
The charges, filed today in Case No. 26S-JD-115 and publicly available through the Indiana Supreme Court, mark the latest development in a matter that has already placed the longtime local judge on voluntary paid leave since late September 2025. Court operations in Superior Court I continue without interruption, with senior judges and assistance from Superior Court II Judges Nathan Nikirk and Robert Cline handling the docket.
According to the commission’s Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges, the two-count complaint stems from reports of erratic and agitated behavior by Judge Plummer on several occasions between April and May 2025. The investigation uncovered admissions from the judge to colleagues and others that, during a personal crisis in early 2025, he had used THC vape pens and gummies—sourced from Michigan or family members—to help him sleep. He reportedly vaped approximately five puffs daily from February through May 2025.
Count 1 alleges that Judge Plummer violated the Code of Judicial Conduct (specifically Rules 1.1 and 1.2) by engaging in illegal drug use and possession of marijuana, which remains illegal under Indiana law regardless of out-of-state sourcing. Count 2 alleges he failed to provide complete and candid information about the drug use during the commission’s inquiry, including in an August 2025 interview and a November 2025 deposition, violating Rules 1.2 and 2.16(A). The commission describes some of his statements as inconsistent, equivocal, or non-candid.
Judge Plummer, 57, was appointed to the bench in 2018 by then-Gov. Eric Holcomb after serving as Lawrence County Juvenile Referee since 2014. A third-generation member of a prominent local legal family (his father and grandfather also served in Lawrence County courts), he is a Bedford North Lawrence High School graduate (Class of 1986), earned his undergraduate degree from Indiana University Bloomington in 1990, and his law degree from Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 1996. He previously practiced as a criminal defense attorney and was elected to a full six-year term in November 2024. He is married with three children and is represented in the disciplinary matter by Bedford attorney Glen Koch.
The judge is not currently hearing cases and has not issued a public statement. He has 20 days to file a response to the charges if he chooses. The Indiana Supreme Court will ultimately decide the outcome, which could range from dismissal to sanctions including a public reprimand, suspension, or permanent ban from judicial office.
A parallel in Indiana judicial accountability
While no identical recent case of a sitting Indiana judge facing discipline specifically for personal marijuana use turned up in public records, the situation echoes broader patterns of judicial oversight in the state. For example, in 2025 Howard Superior Court Judge Matthew J. Elkin faced nine counts of misconduct tied to his oversight of drug and re-entry courts—including inappropriate boundaries with participants, favoritism, and failure to disqualify himself from cases involving former clients. He resigned and received a permanent ban from the bench in September 2025.
Closer in substance (though older), former Hamilton County Magistrate William Paul Greenaway was permanently banned from judicial service in 2020 after pleading guilty to felony methamphetamine possession following a drug-sting arrest.
The Plummer matter underscores the commission’s role in investigating complaints of judicial misconduct—whether involving courtroom demeanor, personal conduct, or candor—and the high bar set for those who wear the robe. As the Indiana Supreme Court has noted in past rulings, judges are held to standards that promote public confidence in the judiciary.