Throwback Thursday

10 years ago this month:

  • Based on a stipulation of facts and waiver of hearing, the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities released its private reprimand of a judge for officiating the marriage of the victim and the defendant in a domestic violence case and, after dismissing the case based on marital privilege, stating to the defendant, “I earlier today sentenced you to life — marriage to her.”  In the Matter of Russell, Private Reprimand (Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities January 10, 2011).
  • Pursuant an agreement, stipulation of facts, and waiver of hearing, the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities made public its private reprimand of a judge for driving while intoxicated and being involved in an automobile accident; the judge also agreed to comply with the conditions of a deferred discipline agreement.  In the Matter of Boone, Private Reprimand (Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities January 17, 2011).
  • Affirming the decision of the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Nevada Supreme Court removed a former judge from office for (1) sleeping during trials; (2) ex parte contacts with deliberating juries in 2 cases, making improper public comments to the media while one of the cases was pending, and making false statements to the media in a post-trial interview; (3) using obscene terms to refer to employees in the presence of her bailiff; giving the bailiff $20 and telling him to “go play with the other bailiffs;” and requiring him to massage her feet, neck, and shoulders; (4) yelling at employees and using foul language in the presence of her assistant; (5) allowing 2 unauthorized individuals to gain access to the courthouse to serve as her body guards or security officers; (6) making false statements to a news reporter; and (7) prohibiting the chief judge from communicating with her except through her attorney, refusing to communicate or cooperate with the court administrator when he attempted to retrieve a rolodex from her office, and telling the police that “unauthorized personnel” were attempting to access her chambers.  In the Matter of Halverson, 373 P.3d 925 (Nevada 2011). 
  • Adopting the findings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, the New Jersey Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former judge for failing to report his consensual, dating relationship with a bailiff he supervised, as required by court policy.  In the Matter of Campbell, 10 A.3d 1201 (New Jersey 2011).
  • Based on an agreed statement of fact and joint recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a non-lawyer judge for intervening in an impending proceeding involving a hunter who trespassed on his son’s property, asking the investigating department of environmental conservation officer to make the ticket be returnable before him, presiding over the arraignment and accepting the hunter’s guilty plea, and sending his co-judge an ex parte letter about the case.  In the Matter of Allen, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct January 4, 2011).
  • The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a non-lawyer judge for failing to deposit and remit court funds in a timely manner, filing reports with the State Comptroller that falsely and/or inaccurately stated the amounts collected, and engaging in impropriety with respect to traffic violations with which she was charged.  In the Matter of Halstead, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct January 27, 2011).
  • The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Judicial Discipline removing a judge for (1) being habitually and egregiously late for court and frequently absent from the courthouse; (2) being impatient, undignified, and discourteous to court staff and hindering and obstructing the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court officials; (3) repeatedly engaging in lengthy recitations of her displeasure with the president judge on the record; (4) causing a commotion outside of a courtroom and, in a letter to the president judge, falsely claiming that a deputy court administrator had caused the incident; (5) ignoring directives of the president judge to report vacation and sick days of her staff, to provide copies of attendance reports for her employees, and to obtain approval for appointments of personnel; (6) consistently handling fewer cases and disposing of cases more slowly than other judges; (7) using a court employee to do personal work; and (8) instructing her law clerk to “cut [the plaintiff’s lawyer] a new as***le” in an opinion and, in a second case, to draft an opinion in favor of the plaintiffs because they had supported her politically and failing to disqualify from those cases.  In re Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427 (Pennsylvania 2011).

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