Hoosier Enquirer Investigation From the Bench to a Permanent Ban: What Happened to Former Randolph Superior Judge Dale Arnett?

Location Matters

One year ago, few outside Randolph County had ever heard the name Dale W. Arnett. Today, his judicial career is over, his reputation severely damaged, and his case has become one of the most significant judicial discipline matters in Indiana in recent years. Yet despite being permanently barred from ever serving as a judge again, Arnett remains licensed to practice law.

The question many Hoosiers may ask is simple:

How does a judge lose the right to ever wear a robe again, but still keep the right to practice law?  His case was actually suppose to help restore public confidence in CJ Loretta Rush and her failed leadership.

A Longtime Attorney Turned Judge

Dale W. Arnett had been an attorney for decades before taking office on January 1, 2021, as Judge of the Randolph Superior Court in Winchester, Indiana. Public legal directories indicate he was admitted in Ohio in 1987 and Indiana in 1988 and maintained an office at 102 East Hospital Drive in Winchester.

Initially, his election was viewed as bringing experience to the bench. However, according to the Indiana Supreme Court, problems in his courtroom eventually became "impossible to ignore."

The Allegations Begin

By 2024, the Randolph County Prosecutor's Office reportedly compiled a thirteen-page list of criminal cases involving missing orders, absent docket entries, and cases with no future hearing dates scheduled. Court staff and attorneys also repeatedly warned about serious administrative failures within the court. Yet according to the Supreme Court's findings, little corrective action was taken.

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed eleven counts of misconduct in August 2025.

The allegations were "stunning": to the media reporting on it but seem to occur in many of Indiana's 92 counties without such drastic measures or any reporting on such ministarial matters. Who did this this judge piss off?

.

According to publicly filed documents:

• Criminal defendants allegedly sat in jail for months without timely hearings.

• Some cases were dismissed because defendants were not brought to trial within Indiana Criminal Rule 4 deadlines.

• Sentencing orders and abstracts of judgment allegedly went unsigned for months.

• Bond payments allegedly were not properly monitored.

• Civil and domestic cases also experienced delays and missing orders.

  
  

Perhaps "most shocking" was the allegation that one defendant remained incarcerated approximately seven months before receiving an initial hearing. Local media reported that several cases had to be dismissed because required judicial actions simply never occurred.

Supreme Court Suspends Arnett

On September 4, 2025, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an order suspending Arnett with pay while disciplinary proceedings continued.

Interestingly, Arnett did not contest the suspension and indicated his desire to cooperate with the process. The Court found suspension necessary to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

By that point, Arnett had already been on leave since April 2025, and a judge pro tempore had been assigned to handle Randolph Superior Court matters.

The Final Blow

On November 21, 2025, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its final opinion.

Its language was unusually direct.

The Court found that Arnett engaged in:

"a long pattern of mismanagement, delay, and dereliction of his judicial duties."

Well, isn't that exactly what Chief Justice Rush has done herself as Indiana's first female Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court?

The Court concluded that he repeatedly failed to:

1. Timely bring defendants before a judicial officer.

2. Conduct criminal trials within required deadlines.

3. Issue judgments, sentencing orders, and other rulings.

4. Properly supervise court administration.

   
   

As part of an agreed resolution, Arnett resigned and was permanently prohibited from ever serving as:

• a judge,

• judge pro tempore,

• temporary judge, or

• private judge in Indiana.

The sanction amounts to the judicial equivalent of disbarment from the bench.

Yet He Kept His Law License

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the case is what did not happen.

Arnett retained his Indiana law license.

The Supreme Court cited mitigating factors including:

• no prior discipline,

• cooperation with investigators, and

• acceptance of responsibility.

  
  

The Court analogized the matter to prior judicial discipline cases in which judges also retained their licenses despite permanent removal from judicial service.

As of July 2026, no publicly filed attorney discipline proceeding against Arnett appears to exist, but most such investigations are privately conducted by the incompetent lawyers at the Indiana Supreme Court Discipline Commission, many of who have never been judges or successful practicing lawyers outside their government positions.

That means there is currently no public Indiana Supreme Court attorney discipline case captioned "In re Dale W. Arnett."

Whether any confidential grievance has been filed is unknown.

What Is Arnett Doing Today?

Public records suggest Arnett's law license remains active, and attorney directories continue to list him as an attorney in Winchester. However, there is little public information confirming whether he has resumed an active private practice or the extent of any legal work currently being performed.

Meanwhile, Randolph County has moved on.

Governor Mike Braun appointed a Winchester female attorney, Olivia Faddis, to the Randolph Superior Court vacancy earlier this year. The county's courts have continued operating under substitute judicial assignments while additional changes have occurred in Randolph County's judiciary.

(It seems that these kind of matters often are show trial case on the edge of the state or far from Indianapolis to intimidated other judges and lawyers hence forth scared into complaince and/or silence.)

Has Randolph County Turned the Page?

Judge Faddis has only been on the bench for a short time and inherited a court that reportedly faced significant administrative challenges and potential backlogs. Whether Randolph Superior Court has fully recovered from one of Indiana's most significant recent judicial scandals remains an open question. Future caseload statistics, attorney feedback, and public records may ultimately determine whether meaningful reforms have occurred or whether deeper systemic issues remain.

At this point, it is simply too early to make a definitive judgment on whether Judge Olivia Faddis is "doing better" than former Judge Dale Arnett.

Judge Faddis was only appointed to the Randolph Superior Court by Governor Mike Braun in late May 2026 and has been on the bench for only a matter of weeks. (New placeholder Governor still seems to be taking his orders from Rush & Co. Maybe he joined "her team.")

That said, there are several publicly available indicators suggesting that the court's situation has improved administratively:

1. No public reports of major docket crises have surfaced since her appointment. There have been no published allegations of defendants sitting in jail without hearings, widespread Criminal Rule 4 dismissals, or missing sentencing orders comparable to those alleged under Arnett.

   
   

2. Faddis comes from a different professional background -- Much like Loretta Rush and other lady lawyers in the state. Before becoming judge, she practiced family law, guardianships, juvenile cases, adoptions, CHINS, and minor criminal matters and served on the Randolph County Community Corrections Advisory Board.

   
   

3. The court has already undergone substantial outside scrutiny. After the Arnett matter, it is reasonable to expect heightened monitoring by court administration, local attorneys, prosecutors, and the Indiana Supreme Court's Office of Judicial Administration. Courts emerging from highly publicized disciplinary matters often receive additional attention to ensure administrative compliance.

   
   

However, there are also reasons to remain cautious before declaring success:

• Judicial performance data such as case processing times, pending caseload statistics, and timeliness reports have not yet been publicly released for her tenure.

• She inherited a court that reportedly had significant administrative issues and possible backlog problems. Cleaning those up can take many months.

• The true test will be whether future annual judicial reports and attorney experiences indicate that criminal cases are moving promptly and that orders are being timely issued.

  
  

From a Hoosier Enquirer's Investigative perspective, several good public-record questions remain:

• How many pending cases existed when Faddis assumed office?

• How many Criminal Rule 4 cases remain?

• Have all delayed sentencing orders and abstracts been corrected?

• What assistance has the Indiana Supreme Court provided Randolph County?

• Were any additional audits conducted after the Arnett investigation?

Of course such facts are hidden from any real public review. Hence, there is no public evidence that the serious problems that existed under Judge Arnett are continuing under Judge Faddis, but it is still too early to conclude definitively that all issues have been resolved.

Lastly, who is the County Proscutor and where was The Randolph County Prosecutor, David Daly, assuming the he was the elected attorney responsible for upholding the laws of the State of Indiana in that county?

Broader Questions for Indiana

The Arnett case raises difficult questions.

How could such extensive problems allegedly continue for so long before formal intervention occurred?

Were warning signs missed? And for how long? Until HE started to focus on Rush's failures?

Did attorneys and litigants raise concerns earlier?

Could Indiana's judicial oversight systems identify similar problems sooner in the future?

The Supreme Court described the misconduct as affecting more than isolated incidents and extending across both criminal and civil dockets. The consequences potentially impacted defendants, crime victims, attorneys, litigants, and public confidence in the courts themselves.

A Rare and Extraordinary Outcome

Permanent judicial bans remain relatively uncommon in Indiana.

For a sitting judge to be removed from office and forever prohibited from judicial service is among the most severe sanctions available.

Yet the unusual outcome here is that while Dale Arnett can never again preside over a courtroom from the bench, Indiana law currently allows him to potentially appear inside one as an attorney.

Whether Hoosiers view that distinction as appropriate accountability or an unresolved inconsistency may remain a matter of considerable public debate.

One thing, however, is no longer disputed. The judicial career of Dale W. Arnett is over.  NOW WHEN WILL LORETTA RUSH JOIN HIM?

The broader debate about judicial accountability in Indiana is only beginning and HE is committed to report the truth ignored by so many other Indiana media outlets.