Throwback Thursday

25 years ago this month:

  • Accepting the findings of fact and legal conclusions of the Judicial Conduct Commission, the Arizona Supreme Court removed a judge from office for (1) reinstating charges brought by 2 of his friends against his election opponent and issuing a summons requiring the opponent to appear in his court; (2) after a private meeting with a defendant’s family and employer, telling the investigating police officer that he had strong reason to believe this was a case of mistaken identity; (3) issuing a criminal complaint against the wife of a married couple who owed him about $300 in unpaid rent, plus damages for breaching a lease for office space in a building owned by the judge; and (4) presiding over a landlord-tenant dispute in which the defendant had previously filed a criminal complaint against the judge, accusing him of fraudulently registering to vote in violation of state law. In re Peck, 867 P.2d 853 (Arizona 1994).
  • In a letter, the California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly reproved a judge for making improper and offensive remarks while presiding in cases and for abusive and demeaning language and behavior toward court staff. Letter to Judge Stevens (California Commission on Judicial Performance February 14, 1994).
  • Adopting the findings and recommendations of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge who sent a letter on his official court stationery to a federal judge as a character witness and reference on behalf of a defendant who had pled guilty in federal court. Inquiry Concerning Abel, 632 So. 2d 600 (Florida 1994).
  • Adopting the findings and conclusions of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Georgia Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge and ordered him suspended for 90 days without pay for (1) failing to process or dispose of citations filed by certain rangers of the Game and Fish Division of the state Department of Natural Resources; (2) stating that there were too many laws dealing with fish and game violations, that he did not agree with those laws, that he could not stand a particular DNR officer, and that he was not accountable to anyone; (3) dismissing citations without hearing evidence; (4) stating that he would not accept cases initiated by a particular DNR ranger; and (5) failing to forthrightly address the charges filed by the Commission. Inquiry Concerning Cannon, 440 S.E.2d 169 (Georgia 1994).

 

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s