Throwback Thursday

25 years ago this month:

  • Based on the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission and a stipulation, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for remarks published in a newspaper concerning public schools, the provocative dress of female students, the prevalence of blacks on welfare and in the criminal justice system, and the propriety of making racial slurs and telling racial jokes in private. Re:  Santora, 600 So. 2d 1269 (Florida 1992).
  • Adopting the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Georgia Supreme Court removed from office a magistrate who had failed to complete the required training for magistrates. In the Matter of Holcomb, 418 S.E.2d 63 (Georgia 1992).
  • Approving the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Georgia Supreme Court suspended a chief magistrate without pay for 30 days for not giving a black associate magistrate a key to the office and forcing him to work out of the trunk of his car. In the Matter of Hammock, 417 S.E.2d 129 (Georgia 1992).
  • Adopting the findings of the Judicial Tenure Commission, the Michigan Supreme Court publicly censured a magistrate who had represented a defendant in a jury trial. In the Matter of Hammons, 484 N.W.2d 401 (Michigan 1992).
  • Accepting the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, the New Jersey Supreme Court removed a former judge from office for using marijuana and supplying marijuana to another individual on one occasion and for arranging an introduction to help an individual obtain employment from a litigant who was a party to an action before the court on which the judge sat. In the Matter of Pepe, 607 A.2d 988 (New Jersey 1992).
  • The Rhode Island Supreme Court removed a judge for agreeing to appoint an attorney as a receiver, special master, or similar position in return for 25% of the fees paid to the attorney; failing to notify counsel in a criminal case that he had business dealings with one of the attorneys of record and one of the defendants; and failing to deny or discourage a defendant’s assertion that he had bought the judge. In the Matter of Almeida, 611 A.2d 1375 (Rhode Island 1992).

 

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