Throwback Thursday

20 years ago this month:

  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for driving under the influence and failing to report the criminal charges and his conviction to the Commission.  Public Admonishment of Ryan (California Commission on Judicial Performance June 20, 2000).
  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for (1) making comments to a deputy district attorney concerning the attorney’s alleged drinking habits and those of her future father-in-law; (2) making an ex parte comment to 2 deputy district attorneys; and (3) making a statement to a thin white defendant that was reasonably understood to infer that he might be vulnerable to sexual assault in jail. Inquiry Concerning Shaw, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance June 26, 2000).
  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured a judge for (1) touching his bailiff’s breasts and staring at and asking to see her breasts; (2) making a sexually suggestive comment to a female deputy sheriff; (3) making a derogatory reference to a female deputy district attorney; and (4) telling a clerk that he wanted her to “sit in the courtroom and look pretty” and puckering his lips and kissing at her from afar. Inquiry Concerning Willoughby, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance June 27, 2000).
  • Accepting the findings and recommendations of the Judicial Qualifications Commission based on a stipulation, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for making several comments to police designed to obtain favorable treatment after being arrested on a charge of solicitation for prostitution. Inquiry Concerning Richardson, 760 So. 2d 932 (Florida 2000).
  • Adopting the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, the Kansas Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for recusing from some cases involving a law firm and a sole practitioner but refusing to recuse from other cases and requiring an informed consent by the lawyers’ clients, rather than obtaining waiver. In the Matter of Platt, 8 P.3d 686 (Kansas 2000).
  • Granting the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Mississippi Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge and fined him $500 for contacting the officer who arrested the judge’s son for DUI and asking the judge assigned to his son’s case for her help in getting the case dismissed. Commission on Judicial Performance v. Brown, 761 So. 182 (Mississippi 2000).
  • The Mississippi Supreme Court suspended a judge for 90 days and fined him $1,500 for harassing and intimidating a minor female who had accused the judge of engaging in sexual relations with her and for intimidating a high school student who had made suggestive remarks to the minor. Commission on Judicial Performance v. Bishop, 761 So. 2d 195 (Mississippi 2000).
  • Accepting an agreement, the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for (1) holding tickets in abeyance and (2) presiding in preliminary matters in a case involving her grandson. In the Matter of Johnson, 532 S.E.2d 883 (South Carolina 2000).
  • Accepting an agreement, the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former magistrate for (1) failing to promptly deposit money collected from defendants for bail; (2) incurring insufficient funds charges against his magistrate’s account; (3) stating on his disclosure statement that he had no extra-judicial income when he had income from conducting a shoplifting prevent seminar; (4) acting in a loud, disorderly manner with staff of the county detention center; (5) releasing defendants based on ex parte communications; (6) issuing an order involving child custody when he did not have authority to do so; (7) making inappropriate comments to a female deputy; and (8) failing to transmit funds collected for bonds to the other magistrate. In the Matter of Nelson, 532 S.E.2d 609 (South Carolina 2000).
  • Pursuant to a stipulation and the judge’s agreement to resign, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct public censured a judge for using court computer equipment, a state-provided computer, and state-provided Internet services to access Internet sites for his personal benefit, including “adult-only” sites, on-line auction sites, personal financial sites, shopping sites, and personal travel sites. In re Furman, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 2, 2000).

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