Throwback Thursday

10 years ago this month:

  • Accepting a stipulation and adopting the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Alaska Supreme Court publicly censured a former judge for (1) making pre-signed bail orders available for prosecutors to use for out-of-custody arraignments; (2) failing to diligently track speedy trial timeframes; (3) engaging in ex parte communications and presiding over a matter from which he should have disqualified himself; and (4) making inappropriate sexual comments to female court employees in the workplace. In re Landry, 157 P.3d 1049 (Alaska 2007).
  • Based on a stipulated agreement, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for a campaign flyer that used multiple exclamation points, a bold font, and capital letters and made insinuations about his opponent. Inquiry Concerning Gastelum, Public Reprimand (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct May 8, 2007).
  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for a pattern of discourteous and sarcastic comments to attorneys and litigants. Public Admonishment of Petrucelli (California Commission on Judicial Performance May 22, 2007).
  • Based on a statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline, the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge who pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the limit. In the Matter of Hanley, 867 N.E.2d 157 (Indiana 2007).
  • Based on the findings of the Judiciary Commission, the Louisiana Supreme Court suspended a judge from office for 30 days without pay for issuing an arrest warrant against a neighbor with whom she had a poor relationship. In re Alfonso, 957 So.2d 121 (Louisiana 2007).
  • The Mississippi Supreme Court suspended a judge for 30 days without pay for “passing” 14 traffic tickets to the file over the objections of the issuing officer. Commission on Judicial Performance v. Gordon, 955 So. 2d 300 (Mississippi 2007).
  • Granting a petition filed by the Commission on Judicial Standards based on stipulated facts, the New Mexico Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for endorsing a mayor for re-election and authorizing the use of his name in an endorsement published in the newspaper. Inquiry Concerning Vincent, 172 P.3d 605 (New Mexico 2007).
  • Based on an agreed statement of facts and joint recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a non-lawyer judge who sentenced 2 defendants represented by an attorney just before announcing that she was barring the attorney from appearing before her in the future and who barred the attorney from appearing before her based on unsubstantiated hearsay information. In the Matter of Appel, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 14, 2007).
  • Based on an agreed statement of facts and argument on the issue of sanctions, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a non-lawyer judge who (1) in 2 matters, engaged in ex parte communications and made biased statements about the parties, notwithstanding that he had previously been admonished for similar conduct and (2) failed to disqualify himself in 7 cases when his personal attorney appeared. In the Matter of Merrill, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 14, 2007).
  • Accepting a recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission based on stipulated facts, the North Carolina Supreme Court removed a former judge from office for his conviction for failing to file federal income tax returns. In re Balance, 643 S.E.2d 584 (North Carolina 2007).
  • Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court suspended a judge from office without pay for 6 months for setting a bond for the friend of a sheriff’s officer even though he was not the magistrate on call, did not seek permission to conduct the special bond hearing, did not conduct hearings for any other inmates awaiting bond hearings, and failed to inform the chief magistrate that a hearing had been conducted. In the Matter of Davis, 645 S.E.2d 243 (South Carolina 2007).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s