Judge accused of using 'game or jail' tactic, asserting abuse victims get 'Super Bowl' neurochemicals
Judge Matthew J. Elkin of Howard County, Indiana, allegedly compared the experience of domestic violence victims being beaten to Tom Brady playing in the Super Bowl. (Photo by Patrick Smith/Getty Images)
An Indiana judge has been accused in an ethics complaint of failing to recognize “appropriate ethical boundaries” and making “injudicious statements” to litigants and defendants.
Judge Matthew J. Elkin of Howard County, Indiana, allegedly singled out some participants for special treatment in the problem-solving courts over which he presided and made discourteous remarks to other participants and litigants, according to a March 26 statement of charges. A March 26 press release summarized the allegations.
WISH, WTHR, the Kokomo Tribune and the Indiana Lawyer have coverage.
The problem-solving courts included drug court, which addressed substance-abuse issues of criminal defendants, and the reentry court, which focused on reintegrating people into the community after incarceration.
In one instance in March 2023, Elkin allegedly told a reentry participant who had been a domestic violence victim why he thinks that such victims stay in relationships.
He began by talking about the kind of elation quarterback Tom Brady must feel when winning the Super Bowl. After the win, Brady’s brain “is filled with all kinds of neurochemicals,” he said.
“If I smack the sh-t out of you right now, what chemicals get dumped in your brain?” Elkin allegedly said. “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.”
In another instance in October 2023, Elkin is accused of using a “game or jail” tactic after learning that a re-entry court participant referred to as R.P. was accused of rule violations. Elkin ordered the handcuffing of the person seated next to R.P. and told them the handcuffed person would be sent to jail if R.P. lied to him.
His aim, Elkin later said, was to prevent R.P. from rationalizing or downplaying his behavior and would reward him for telling the truth.
The complaint also alleges that Elkin:
• Remarked on a criminal defendant’s lengthy record, saying, “You have more convictions than the average child molester in this country. You are the one-third of the one percent of the worst people in the planet.”
• Displayed a sign to a problem-solving court participant that said, “Watching you dumb a- -.”
• Failed to disqualify himself in some cases in which he previously represented the defendant as a criminal defense attorney or appointed public defender.
• Followed problem-solving court participants outside the courtroom to check up on them.
• Told some staff members he has followed them or had them followed outside the courtroom and twice accused them of being “moles.”
• Gave special treatment to some problem-solving court participants but not to others. In one case, he allowed a drug-court participant to live at his wife’s rental property, initially charging only for utilities. In other instances, he allowed participants to store personal belongings at his or his wife’s properties, rented a car for one participant applying for a job, offered household and personal belongings to participants, and walked one person to a medical appointment before incarceration.
A lawyer for Elkin, Jennifer Lukemeyer, did not immediately reply to an ABA Journal request for comment.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
