Monthly Archives: April 2023

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

5 years ago this month:

  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for commenting publicly to a reporter about a domestic violence case and, later in court in the same case, describing the victim as “white as a piece of wonder bread” when comparing the prosecution’s treatment of her to their treatment of the victim in another case.  In the Matter Concerning Lord, Decision and order imposing public admonishment (California Commission on Judicial Performance April 11, 2018).
  • Based on the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, the Kansas Supreme Court publicly censured a former magistrate for revoking a defendant’s probation based only on the motion and without providing the defendant an opportunity to respond and failing to cooperate with the Commission.  In the Matter of Trigg, 414 P.3d 1203 (Kansas 2018).
  • Pursuant to an agreement, the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission suspended a judge for 60 days without pay for (1) using inmates from the county detention center and publicly owned equipment in the reconstruction of the church he attended and at which he had a leadership role; (2) personally observing community services work and signing documents verifying community services work performed by criminal defendants on probation in his court; (3) misconduct related to the ankle monitoring program; (4) failing to decide a motion for 3 years and failing to decide motions for shock probation within the statutory time limit; and (4) employing a man to work on his property who was under supervised probation for a guilty plea over which the judge had presided.  In re Langford, Agreed order of suspension (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission April 2, 2018).
  • Adopting the findings of the Judicial Standards Commission and based on its recommendation and the commissioner’s agreement, the North Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a deputy commissioner of the Industrial Commission for driving under the influence of an impairing substance.  In re Shipley, 811 S.E.2d 556 (North Carolina 2018).
  • The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline publicly reprimanded a former judge for angrily confronting court staff about the complaints they made about him to the Judicial Conduct Board.  In re Tidd, 181 A.3d 14 (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline 2018).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for (1) hiring a woman with whom he had an intimate relationship and making inappropriate comments about her during office hours and (2) issuing an amended judgment without providing the parties with notice and setting an appeal bond that was over the amount specified by rule; the Commission also ordered the judge to repeat new judges training.  Public Reprimand of Jasso and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 18, 2018).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for (1) referring to a man who was the subject of a guardianship proceedings as “Mr. Maggot,” “Maggot Man,” or words to that effect; (2) comparing the IQ of a woman who was the subject of a guardianship proceeding to the IQ of a pen; and (3) interacting with litigants in 3 guardianship cases in a manner that reasonably led them to feel disrespected, demeaned, and frustrated; the Commission also ordered the judge to receive 1 hour of  instruction with a mentor on demeanor and courtroom decorum.  Public Admonition of Cross and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 18, 2018).

Appointment of counsel for indigent defendants

Posted on by

Pursuant to the judge’s consent, the Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission publicly censured a judge for a pattern of failing to consider the legal standard for appointing the public defender for misdemeanor defendants.  Bourne, Letter of censure (Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission August 1, 2022).  The Commission acknowledged that the decision to appoint counsel is a legal determination and that a judge could incorrectly decide the issue without violating the code of judicial conduct.  However, it concluded that the judge’s pattern of failing to appoint counsel, his disregard for the proper procedure, and his failure to consider the legal standard “pushe[d] his legal error into the realm of judicial misconduct.”

For years, the judge rarely approved affidavits of indigency submitted by defendants.  The affidavits were not kept as a public record and were destroyed.  The Commission found that the judge “often discouraged defendants from seeking appointments, telling them they would ‘probably not’ qualify before even reviewing all of the factors and the affidavit.”  “Instead of conducting a proper review,” “he would frequently just respond with, ‘I am not going to appoint a lawyer for you.  Get a job.’”

The Commission noted that, as part of an extensive news report by a TV station, many citizens told an investigative reporter that they had been denied appointed counsel on misdemeanor charges in the judge’s court, and in an on-camera interview, the head of the state’s Public Defender Commission agreed that affidavits from defendants in the judge’s court showed counsel had not been appointed for defendants who qualified.  See KARK.com, “Working 4 You:  Public defender Denied in court, records reveal only 48 cases in nine years” (October 28, 2021).

In a separate proceeding, based on the Commission recommendation and the judge’s agreement, the Arkansas Supreme Court suspended the same judge for 90 days without pay for a pattern of injudicious conduct toward defendants; the Court held 75 days of the suspension in abeyance subject to the judge’s compliance with conditions and ordered that he never again hold judicial office after his current term ends.  Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission v. Bourne, Per curiam (August 9, 2022).

In a petition in December 2022, based on 5 complaints about his conduct after he returned from his suspension, the Commission alleged that the judge had violated his agreement in the prior discipline case.  The judge resigned, and the Commission dismissed the complaints.   See arkansasonline.com, “Pope County judge accused of improper behavior announces retirement after facing more complaints” (January 3, 2023).

* * *
Based on the judge’s agreement, the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission suspended a judge for 14 days without pay for denying appointment of counsel to defendants without making the necessary review of their indigent status.  In re Ruttle, Agreed order of suspension (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission March 1, 2023).

The order names 1 specific case in which the judge denied appointment of counsel at a defendant’s initial court appearances in 2021 without determining whether the defendant was indigent as required by statute.  The Commission found that a review of the judge’s felony arraignments revealed that this was “not an isolated incident.”

In 2021, based on an agreement, the Commission had suspended the same judge for 7 days without pay for (1) requiring criminal defendants to file written demands for jury trials; (2) making impatient, undignified, and discourteous comments to attorneys from the state public defenders agency; and (3) in a proceeding with an unrepresented defendant, suggesting a plea agreement that could reasonably be perceived as coercive.  In re Ruttle, Agreed order of suspension (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission April 7, 2021).

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

10 year ago this month:

  • Based on a recommendation and stipulated resolution, the Arizona Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for improper demeanor, inappropriate statements, and coercive behavior in 2 settlement conferences.  Inquiry Concerning Cornelio, Order (Arizona Supreme Court April 24, 2013).
  • Based on a stipulation and the judge’s consent, the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee publicly reprimanded a judge for presiding over 2 arraignments in cases in which the victim was his brother-in-law without disclosing the relationship.  Lyons, Reprimand (New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee April 16, 2013).
  • Accepting the determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York Court of Appeals removed a former judge for sexual contact with a 5-year-old girl in 1972.  In the Matter of Hedges, 988 N.E.2d 509 (New York 2013).
  • Pursuant to an agreement, the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct publicly censured a judge for (1) his intemperate, argumentative, and disruptive conduct during a deposition, which was contrary to a partially deferred discipline agreement in 2009 in which he agreed to cease and desist from injudicious treatment directed at a particular law firm and (2) an improper ex parte hearing and ex parte relief with respect to a petition to modify a permanent parenting plan.  Wilson (Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct April 5, 2013).
  • Pursuant to an agreement, the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for (1) commenting that he believed an attorney who appeared in his court must be having a sexual relationship with another attorney who appeared before him; and (2) asking the spouse of a court employee who had taken a leave of absence in the presence of other individuals who worked with the spouse about the court employee’s potential problem in an abrasive manner that was noted by others who were present.  McKenzie (Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct April 11, 2013).
  • Accepting an agreement that included the judge’s resignation and agreement not to seek or accept judicial office in the state, the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former judge for (1) after setting bond for a defendant, posting the bond on the defendant’s behalf from his own personal funds and signing the bond form as both judge and surety; (2) in a case in which he had arraigned the defendant, signing a paper stating that a victim agreed to drop all charges against the defendant based on payment of $1,178.80; (3) when the jail mistakenly transported a defendant to court, allowing the defendant to plead guilty without the arresting officer and victim being present or being notified of the proceeding; (4) directing his clerk to change a case history from guilty to not guilty; and (5) in announcing his decision to deny a request for a restraining order against a police officer, commenting that granting a restraining order could have a serious effect on the officer’s career and incorrectly applying a reasonable doubt standard.  In the Matter of Bryngelson, 742 S.E.2d 392 (South Carolina 2013).

Recent cases

Posted on by
  • In a joint press release with the judge, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission reported that, given his resignation, the suspension of his law license, and his affirmation that he would not seek or accept any further judicial position, it has terminated its investigation of a complaint about a judge’s “running, management, and handling” of a municipal court. Wooten, Joint press release (Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission March 2, 2023).
  • Based on an agreement and stipulation to resolve a complaint, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary publicly censured a former judge for anonymously sending to 18 media organizations and county officials a package with an anonymous letter criticizing the county commission, 2 county commissioners, and a police officer and a recording of a telephone call between the police officer and one of the commissioners in which racist and misogynistic language was used. In the Matter of King, Final judgment (Alabama Court of the Judiciary March 2, 2023).
  • Accepting a joint agreement and proposed resolution, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary publicly censured a judge for his pattern and practice of appointing his brother-in-law as an attorney in indigent juvenile cases. In the Matter of Naman, Final judgment (Alabama Court of the Judiciary March 2, 2023).
  • The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for making insulting, demeaning, and unnecessary statements to the parents in a juvenile matter, for example, stating “who do you think your baby is going to attach to, given that babies can’t wait?  Not either of you” and telling the father, “Sit up straight.  You’re not at home watching TV on the couch.”  Kelliher, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct March 30, 2023).
  • Based on the judge’s agreement, the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission suspended a judge for 14 days without pay for denying appointment of counsel to defendants without making the necessary review of their indigent status. In re Ruttle, Agreed order of suspension (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission March 1, 2023).
  • With the judge’s agreement, the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission publicly reprimanded a judge for ex parte communications in 2 cases. In re Atkins, Public reprimand (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission March 1, 2023).
  • Adopting most of the findings of a 3-judge panel, the New Jersey Supreme Court removed a former judge from office and permanently barred her from holding judicial office in the State for her behavior at the school attended by her children that led to her conviction on a charge of defiant trespass, giving untruthful testimony at her criminal trial, and her behavior during her husband’s lawsuit against the school. In the Matter of Mullen, Order (New Jersey Supreme Court March 8, 2023).
  • Accepting the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, which was based on a stipulation of discipline by consent, the New Jersey Supreme Court permanently barred a former surrogate from judicial office and publicly censured her for presiding over a hearing on applications to be appointed administrator of an estate when one of the applicants was a friend, appointing that friend as administrator rather than appointing a relative of the decedent, and failing to disclose to Committee investigators the nature and extent of the relationship. In the Matter of Toledo, Order (New Jersey Supreme Court March 28, 2023).
  • Granting a motion for summary determination that the factual allegations of the complaint were sustained and that the judge’s misconduct was established, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a non-lawyer judge for (1) making sexually charged comments to and about attorneys appearing in his court and driving a car with inappropriate graphics and/or bumper stickers; (2) visibly carrying a handgun while inside or just outside the courthouse, in violation of his permit to carry a concealed pistol; (3) failing to timely report or remit court funds to the state comptroller; (4) failing to cooperate with the state court administrator’s office and town officials in their investigation of his failure to perform his administrative duties; (5) failing to answer 2 traffic tickets and failing to renew the insurance on his motor vehicle; (6) using his official judicial email account in connection with the tickets; and (7) failing to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation. In the Matter of Persons, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct February 23, 2023).
  • Based on its findings of misconduct, which were based on stipulations covering most of the factual issues, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline publicly reprimanded a judge and fined him $15,000 for remaining on the county Democratic committee after announcing his candidacy for magisterial district judge and voting for the committee to endorse him for the position. In re LeFever, Opinion and order (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline March 16, 2023).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for failing to complete his required judicial education for the 2020-2021 and 2021-22 academic years. Public Reprimand of Black (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct March 2, 2023).

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

20 years ago this month:

  • Pursuant to a stipulation for discipline by consent, the California Commission on Judicial Performance public censured a former judge and barred him from receiving an assignment, appointment, or reference of work from any California state court for (1) during his re-election campaign, making false and misleading statements in response to questions posed by a television reporter about reports that he had used the county computer to access sexually explicit sites, (2) threatening to bring legal action against the television station in an attempt to dissuade the publication of facts about him that he knew to be true, and (3) engaging in improper campaign activities in and around the courthouse.  Inquiry Concerning McGraw, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance April 3, 2003).
  • Adopting the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission based on a stipulation, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for a pattern of rude and intemperate behavior, including, for example, routinely embarrassing and belittling counsel in court and questioning their competence; the Court also ordered the judge to continue to participate in psychological/behavioral therapy and to send letters of apology.  Inquiry Concerning Schapiro, 845 So. 2d 170 (Florida 2003).
  • Accepting the determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York Court of Appeals removed a town court justice from office for misappropriating $2,300 in legal fees from his law firm employer, altering a receipt book to disguise 1 theft, and his disbarment as a result of his conduct.  In the Matter of Tamsen, 789 N.E.2d 613 (New York Court of Appeals 2003).
  • Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court suspended a judge for 6 months for talking to witnesses during a break in a trial in which he was also a witness and giving incorrect testimony in a hearing in that case.  In the Matter of Johnson, 579 S.E.2d 308 (South Carolina 2003).
  • Pursuant to an agreement, the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for referring to his former position as magistrate in a telephone message requesting voters to support a candidate for lieutenant governor.  In the Matter of Koon, 580 S.E.2d 147 (South Carolina 2003).
  • Pursuant to an agreement, the South Carolina Supreme Court suspended a judge for 6 months without pay for failing to report missing court funds and checks drawn on her bond account that were returned for insufficient funds.  In the Matter of McCullough, 580 S.E.2d 143 (South Carolina 2003).
  • Pursuant to the judge’s consent, the Utah Supreme Court approved the implementation of the Judicial Conduct Commission’s order of formal reprimand of the judge for angrily engaging detectives who had stopped his daughter’s car.  In re Dobson, Order (Utah Supreme Court April 17, 2003).
  • Pursuant to a stipulation and agreement, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a former judge for using a court facility to assist the personal interests of a former client and friend and attempting to testify without subpoena as a character witness for that former client and friend.  In re Lukevich, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 4, 2003).

Promoting and conflating

Posted on by

Approving a stipulation, the California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured a judge for, in addition to other misconduct, using his title, court resources, and a study prepared for his court to promote a non-profit organization he had created; involving individuals whose companies did business with the court in the organization; misleading court employees to induce them to participate in a press conference about the organization’s launch; and “prevaricat[ing]” in discussions with other judges about the organization.  In the Matter of Vlavianos, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance February 8, 2023).

From 2008 until January 2022, the judge presided over his court’s multi-track DUI program.

In July 2021, the judge formed a non-profit organization—the Association of Comprehensive Collaborative and Equitable Supervision and Services—that would sell the “ACCESS Multi-track Court Model” to collaborative courts.  The organization’s website described it as “a new national non-profit organization that provides education and training for high risk, repeat DUI offenders who do not have high treatment needs.”

The judge promoted ACCESS using his judicial title and court resources.

  • ACCESS issued a press release that used the judge’s title and described him as “Chair of ACCESS and California Superior Court Judge Richard A. Vlavianos.”
  • The ACCESS website prominently featured a photo of the judge in his judicial robe and identified him as a judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court.
  • The website incorporated content from a consultant’s study of the court’s DUI program that the court had paid for. 
  • The judge induced court employees to attend a press conference about the launch of ACCESS during work hours by telling them it was about the results of the study.
  • The judge discussed ACCESS in a TV interview conducted in his chambers.

In promoting the organization, the judge “conflat[ed]” the court’s multi-track DUI program with the “ACCESS Multi-track Court Model.” 

  • Even though ACCESS was not created until 2021, its website stated that the ACCESS program “has been led by the Honorable Richard A. Vlavianos since 2008” and that “5,200 DUI recidivists have participated in ACCESS since 2008, with 80% completing the program successfully.”
  • The website republished data and graphs from the court study under the ACCESS logo and captioned “ACCESS Multi-track Court Model.”

The chief financial officer of ACCESS was the chief software business officer of a company that sells alcohol monitoring software and hardware to courts and agencies, and the judge sought to have his court contract with that company for case management software services.  Further, at the judge’s recommendation, the court ended its existing contract for drug testing and entered into a new contract with a company whose director of marketing was a member of the ACCESS board.

The court’s other judicial officers and staff did not know about the judge’s involvement with ACCESS until December 2021.  In a meeting held after they learned, “Judge Vlavianos was not forthright with his judicial colleagues” and “initially downplayed his involvement in ACCESS, which he described as simply a training program for judges.”  2 days later, he told the presiding judge that the ACCESS website had been taken down and that he had resigned from the board.  The next day, he was removed from his DUI court assignment and prohibited from contact with staff or attorneys involved in the program.

The other misconduct for which the judge was censured was:  (1) failing to fully apprise criminal defendants of their rights, which coerced the defendants into participating in treatment court; (2) making remarks to defendants that created the appearance of bias, failing to safeguard the constitutional right to counsel for an unrepresented defendant, and threatening a deputy public defender with contempt when she objected; (3) exhibiting poor demeanor toward the district attorney; (4) engaging in ex parte communications about and embroiling himself with 2 parole re-entry court defendants and engaging in an ex parte communication with court staff about a criminal defendant; and (5) discussing a represented defendant’s alleged refusal to participate in a program in good faith and the court’s appropriate response without including defense counsel or the deputy district attorney.

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

25 years ago this month:

  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured a retired judge and barred him from receiving assignments, appointments, or references of work from any California state court for (1) in a civil action in which State Farm was defending the insured, (a) becoming angry with State Farm and its attorney, losing his ability to be objective, and ordering the president to appear; (b) when the attorney made a motion on behalf of State Farm, telling the bailiff that the attorney had no right to be in the courtroom and that “if he says one more word even under his breath in this courtroom I will hold him in contempt of court and you will take him to the Orange County jail;” (c) during trial, calling several representatives of State Farm to the stand and questioning them about their conversation with State Farm’s attorney after a settlement conference and threatening to hold the attorney in contempt for objecting to this “star chamber” proceeding; (d) ordering the president of State Farm to appear when there was a dispute about a settlement agreement; (2) in a different case, purportedly because an attorney had repeatedly violated an limine ruling, slamming a tablet down on the bench, excusing the jury, and yelling at the attorney for several minutes loudly enough to be heard in the hallway through a closed door; (3) in a case involving sexual abuse of a child, telling an inappropriate and offensive joke while on the bench; (4) in a fourth case, obtaining the plaintiffs’ waivers of future complaints against him to the Commission, their wavier of the filing of potential civil suits, and their agreement to indemnify him for costs incurred in Commission proceedings and threatening retaliation if complaints were made or civil suits were filed against him; and (5) using the judicial office to promote and sell a book he had written.  Inquiry Concerning Ross, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance April 30, 1998).
  • The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline publicly reprimanded a judge for calling an employee of the statutory appeals unit and a magisterial district judge to influence the outcome of 2 traffic cases.  In re Terrick, 712 A.2d 834, 712 A.2d 848 (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline 1998).
  • The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline publicly reprimanded a judge for calling the supervisor of the county statutory appeals unit and a magisterial district judge to influence the outcome of 2 traffic cases.  In re Joyce, 712 A.2d 834, 712 A.2d 847 (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline 1998).
  • Adopting the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards, the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former non-lawyer magistrate for falsely indicating that he was a “high school graduate or its equivalence (G.E.D.)” on the notarized application for magistrate he had filed with the governor’s office.  In the Matter of White, 499 S.E.2d 813 (South Carolina 1998).

Update

Posted on by

Degrading stereotypes
A blog post in August 2022 summarized cases in which judges had been disciplined for comments to defendants about the possibility of violence in prison.  Since that post, there have been 2 sanctions for similar comments.

  • The Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspended a judge for 45 days without pay and publicly censured him for, in addition to other misconduct, referring to defendants being “somebody’s girlfriend” in the penitentiary and telling defendants that they would be “butt raped in the penitentiary.”  In the Matter of Patterson, Final judgment (Alabama Court of the Judiciary October 27, 2022).  The Court accepted an agreement in which the judge stipulated that the Judicial Inquiry Commission could prove the allegations in its complaint.
  • The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals suspended a judge for 12 months without pay (with 11 months held in abeyance), publicly reprimanded him, and ordered that he undergo counseling for, in addition to other misconduct, failing to treat litigants in 10 family court cases with respect and dignity, including telling a father in a child support case, “Or you’re going to prison forever!  I will send you down to live with the sodomites.”  In the Matter of Camilletti, Order (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals September 20, 2022).  The Court accepted the recommendation of the Judicial Hearing Board, based on a joint stipulation and agreement in which the judge admitted the allegations in a formal statement of charges.

But see In re Burns, Opinion (Texas Special Court of Review December 2, 2022) (overturning sanction for a judge who told a defendant convicted in the murder of a little girl that he “should die in a locked closet just—if [the department of corrections] had one, but they don’t have one for you unfortunately”).

Judges and firearms
The spring 2022 issue of the Judicial Conduct Reporter had an article on “Judges and firearms” with discussions of judicial discipline cases involving firearms in the courtroom, in the courthouse, and in personal disputes. Since that article was published, there have been several additional cases involving judges and firearms.

  • Adopting the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Discipline, which was based on a stipulation, the Colorado Supreme Court suspended a judge from office for 30 days without pay and publicly censured him for pointing an AR-15 style rifle at his adult stepson during a confrontation.  In the Matter of Thompson, 516 P.3d 28 (Colorado 2022).
  • The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct filed formal charges alleging that a judge had used extensive profanity and discharged a firearm in the vicinity of an individual who was subsequently convicted of stalking him and used profanity toward a process server who was serving him with a subpoena.  Subsequently, in a stipulated resolution, the judge agreed not to serve in any judicial capacity in the state after his term concluded on December 31, 2022, and the Commission agreed to conclude the proceeding.  Inquiry Concerning Watters, Final order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct September 7, 2022).
  • Based on the judge’s resignation and agreement not to seek judicial office in the state, the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission publicly admonished a former judge for, in addition to other misconduct, during a hearing, removing a firearm from where it was concealed on his person, putting it on the bench in open view, and at one point, picking up and displaying the gun.  In the Matter of Hummel, Public admonishment (West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission December 2, 2022).
  • In a notice of formal proceedings, the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission alleged, inter alia, that a judge had placed a firearm on top of his desk in chambers one day, pointing at the door and clearly visible to employees walking by or entering his chambers, and told a court clerk that he was “going to kill” a public defender who appeared before him that day, or words to that effect.  Pursuant to a stipulation, the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered the permanent retirement of the judge.  In the Matter of Ionta, Order (New Mexico Supreme Court August 1, 2022).
  • A judge has appealed the determination of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removing him from office for, in addition to other misconduct, brandishing his loaded gun in the courtroom at a litigant who did not pose an imminent threat to him or anyone else, repeatedly mentioning the litigant’s race when recounting the incident, and boasting about the incident.  In the Matter of Putorti, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct September 9, 2022), on appeal.

Letters in adjudicative proceedings
The fall 2022 issue of the Judicial Conduct Reporter had an article on judges submitting character letters in adjudicative proceedings. Shortly after that article was published, accepting an agreed statement of facts and recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for voluntarily submitting character reference letters that invoked his judicial title in support of 2 pistol license applications and writing a letter on his judicial stationery requesting that another judge reconsider the denial of one of the applications.  In the Matter of Aronian, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct November 7, 2022).