Over the past several weeks, I have shined the light on a number of prior rulings from Judge Verkamp. You may remember that, after the first such post, Judge Verkamp responded on Facebook (on August 8th) by saying that he found what I was posting “reprehensible.” Judge Verkamp told us that the “Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct prevents a sitting judge from commenting publicly on why he ruled a certain way in any case.” He also likened me and/or my supporters to hogs wallowing in the mud. I can handle the name calling, and the law enforcement officers who support me have broad shoulders. But notably, last Friday (September 18th), Judge Verkamp made a 180-degree turn.
On Friday, Judge Verkamp commented publicly on his ruling in a particular case (the child pornography case on which I recently shined the light). He said that “Intelligent discussion about the Judicial system is always welcome, and I encourage it.” And gone were the insults.
Let us hope this change in direction means that Judge Verkamp is now ready to discuss his record as judge, perhaps starting with sentences where he did not follow the law.
I assume that Judge Verkamp misspoke when he implied on August 8th that he was not allowed to respond to the cases that I’m highlighting. As his post last Friday made clear, Judge Verkamp is, in fact, allowed to discuss closed cases. If he does not interact with the cases that I’m bringing to light, it’s because he’s choosing to not interact with them.
In other words, if you have heard, “it’s not fair for Lucchi to talk about cases because Judge Verkamp can’t respond,” you have, I’m afraid, been misinformed. Because Judge Verkamp can respond.
Now, as for Judge Verkamp’s post last Friday about the child pornography case – regardless of what the prosecutor did or didn’t do, regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, regardless of any other “nuances” that Judge Verkamp sees, four facts remain:
- According to the detective, the defendant possessed well over 100 videos of child sexual abuse material, some showing children as young as 6 or 7, some showing children being forcibly violated in unspeakable ways.
- Judge Verkamp stated that he sentenced the defendant to “six years,” but glossed over the fact that most of that time was in work release and/or home detention, and on probation.
- Judge Verkamp could have sent the defendant to prison for his entire sentence. But he didn’t. Judge Verkamp decided that this was a person who should serve the majority of his sentence in our community.
- Judge Verkamp later made the defendant’s prison sentence even shorter, over the prosecutor’s objection.
In last Friday’s post, Judge Verkamp stated that there is “always more to the story.” Judge Verkamp stated that sentencing decisions are “complex.” Indeed, Judge Verkamp encouraged discussion about the judicial system, provided it was done “with all the relevant facts.”
To that end, and because I have nothing to hide, I have uploaded the full transcript of the sentencing hearing in this child pornography case to my website so that voters can scrutinize every word of what was said in court: https://lucchiforjudge.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Transcript-of-Sentencing-Hearing.pdf
When you finish reading those pages – if you’re able to (they are graphic) – ask yourself if you think the sentencing decision in this case should have been all that complex. Ask yourself whether you’re comfortable with Judge Verkamp’s choice to allow this defendant to serve the vast majority of his sentence here in our community, rather than prison.
If I am elected judge, I will hold those who harm children accountable for their actions, within the confines of the law.
And if I fail to hold an offender properly accountable, I will own that mistake.
Because accountability matters. Not just for offenders. But also for judges.