Throwback Thursday

25 years ago this month:

  • With the judge’s consent, the California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for (1) denying a defendant his right to appointed counsel based on the ability of others to pay for counsel and on the possibility of future employment; (2) acting unjudicially in handling peremptory challenges; (3) appearing to exhibit animosity toward the public defender’s office and certain attorneys in that office, making improper, derogatory comments about them and writing to the public defender and accusing his office of taking a case for improper reasons; and (4) acting in excess of his authority in a matter involving the imposition of sanctions.  Public Admonishment of Drew (California Commission on Judicial Performance July 1996).
  • The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications publicly admonished a judge for appearing to give preferential treatment to attorneys for collection agencies over individual litigants or their lawyers.  Admonition of Barnard (Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications July 10, 1996).
  • The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications publicly admonished a judge for signing an inaccurate affidavit submitted to the court of appeals in an appeal from a case over which he had presided.  Public Admonition of Johnson (Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications July 11, 1996).
  • The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications entered an order requiring a retired judge to cease and desist from violating state laws, including those relating to the consumption and use of alcoholic beverages, after the judge had been charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence and entered into a diversion agreement in which he agreed to the facts in the police report.  Inquiry Concerning Barbara, Order (Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications July 2, 1996).
  • Accepting the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission, the North Carolina Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for (1) becoming involved in a worthless check case in which the prosecuting witness was a personal friend and (2) entering improper orders in a child custody matter.  In re Ammons, 473 S.E.2d 326 (North Carolina 1996).
  • Accepting the recommendation of the Judicial Hearing Board, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals publicly reprimanded a family law master for attempting to get litigants in a case to agree to become sales representatives for Amway.  In the Matter of Phalen, 475 S.E.2d 327 (West Virginia 1996).

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