Last month, the Mississippi Supreme Court removed a judge from office and fined him $3,500 for failing to follow the law in drug court and other misconduct. Commission on Judicial Performance v. Thompson (Mississippi Supreme Court May 5, 2015). (He has asked for re-consideration.) Contrary to statute, participants in the judge’s drug court had been routinely kept in the program for more than 2 years, and the judge had enrolled participants from other jurisdictions that did not have drug courts even after receiving an opinion from the attorney general advising him not to do so. In addition, without adequate notice or hearings, participants were arrested and jailed for “contempt of orders of the drug court” that were discussed at “staffing meetings” at which they were not present and even though they were in the program for offenses that were not punishable with jail time. The Court noted that the judge’s “apparent defense . . .was that, because it was drug court in which incarceration was a ‘sanction,’ he did not have to use contempt-of-court procedures because ‘drug court is different from regular court.’”
Unfortunately, Judge Thompson is not the only drug court judge who apparently exaggerated the differences between problem-solving courts and traditional courts. In March, based on his agreement not to serve in judicial office again, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications concluded its investigation of a former judge’s conduct and supervision of a county drug court program. In the Matter of Jacobi, Stipulation and agreement (Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications March 13, 2015). The Commission was investigating allegations that the judge had failed to advise participants that they had the right to an attorney before admitting to the violation of a drug court rule that could result in deprivation of liberty; that some drug court participants had spent unnecessary time in jail or were unlawfully detained because the judge had failed to supervise or train court staff; and that the judge had permitted a practice in which initial hearings on alleged drug court rule violations, work release violations, or crimes were not immediately scheduled after participants were arrested.
Last week, according to news reports, a state grand jury indicted now former judge Amanda Williams for making false statements and violating her oath of office by falsely stating during a hearing before the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission that she had not given directions to the sheriff’s office regarding the incarceration of a drug court participant.
In March 2011, the National Public Radio program “This American Life” broadcast an episode that concluded the way then-judge Williams ran her drug court violated “the basic philosophy of all drug courts.” In November 2011, the Commission filed a notice of formal proceedings that alleged Judge Williams, in addition to other misconduct, had a practice of holding drug court participants indefinitely without a hearing and a policy of delaying their placement into treatment; showed favoritism to certain participants; engaged in a pattern of improper ex parte communications with regard to who would be admitted to drug court and acted as a “gatekeeper” for the drug court; expressed bias in criminal matters in the drug court; failed to be patient, dignified, and courteous; and made false representation to the Commission. For example, the notice alleged that the judge had ordered Lindsey Dills confined “until further order of the court” for violating her drug court contract and directed that she was “not to have any telephone privileges and no one is to contact or visit her except [the drug court counselor]! Nobody! Total restriction!” Dills remained in custody for approximately 73 days and attempted suicide while in solitary confinement. In December 2011, based on the judge’s resignation and agreement not to serve in judicial office again, the Commission dismissed the notice. In re Williams, Consent Order (Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission December 19, 2011).
What happens when a judge on a problem-solving court becomes a judicial discipline problem will be one of the topics discussed in a session on judicial ethics and problem-solving courts at the 24th National College on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, October 28-30, 2015, in Chicago. Registration is now available. The session will also consider ethical guidance for judges on problem-solving courts about issues such as ex parte communications, demeanor, fund-raising, and disqualification.