"The Robing Room: IN State Judges

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Graham C. Polando

Comments

Other

Comment #: IN22
Rating:1.0

Comments:
He is not suited for probate court. This magistrate obviously has issues with women, rules against them and intimidates them with incarceration. He does not follow Indiana Code in his rulings, and has no thought for the well-being of the children involved. He is the only magistrate that I have ever witnessed lowering child support based on the respondant's "word" on proof of income, particularly since the respondant has not filed taxes in three years and is paid cash. Indiana parenting time is not adhered to, respondant has 5 days per week, petitioner ordered to provide all transportation because said respondant has no license. Petitioner's evidence, employment, parenting time ruled "insignificant" to the case. He needs to go back to felony cases where he can deal with criminals, and leave the children of St. Joseph County in hands of magistrates that actually follow and understand Indiana Code.