In 2 recent cases, Washington State judges were sanctioned for outbursts in response to comments by litigants.

Based on a stipulation and agreement, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a former judge for angrily criticizing and demeaning an African-American defendant, cutting him off before he could fully explain his motion, and angrily berating him for suggesting that the judge was racially biased.  In the Matter of Brown, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 19, 2024).

On May 5, 2023, the judge presided over a hearing about a potentially dangerous dog citation received by S.D., who was not represented.  After the prosecutor and S.D. presented their respective cases, as the judge began to rule, S.D., who is African-American, asked the judge to recuse himself, noting that the judge had been the judge on S.D.’s other cases in which there had been “racial bias.”  S.D. was referring to 2 prior cases in which he had been called the N word by the opposing party.  Before S.D. could finish explaining his motion to recuse, the judge replied, “shut your mouth.”  When S.D. attempted to finish, the judge repeated that S.D. should shut his mouth or the judge would take him into custody for contempt of court.

The judge then told S.D. he had a “big mouth” and said, “You expect to come in here and just run your mouth and say your dog’s not dangerous and say I’m biased against you because every time you come in here, you’ve screwed up.  You’re a screw up, plain and simple.”  The judge also accused S.D. of “mad dogging” him.  In a footnote, the Commission cites Wiktionary, a free dictionary:  “A rabid dog. (figuratively, by extension) Someone who is aggressive and fanatical; an aggressor who cannot be reasoned with. mad dog.”

At the end of the hearing, the judge mocked S.D. for asking the judge to recuse while the judge was ruling on the matter, saying in a condescending tone, “It has to be before the hearing starts, smart guy.  You think you’re so smart, keep on running your mouth.”

In his answer to the statement of allegations, the judge acknowledged making impatient, undignified, and discourteous statements:

I was contentious, argumentative, angry, and when I left the bench, I was immediately ashamed of my actions. … My words, my demeanor, were inappropriate toward any human being. … I was clearly wrong in my behavior towards [S.D.].  I deeply regret it.  I do hope my stipulations, and acknowledgment of disgraceful behavior, might grant [S.D.] some measure of relief. … Whether I ‘appeared to demonstrate bias’, I cannot say.  I don’t believe I did; however, the other allegations are egregious and embarrassing enough.  The [Statement of Allegations] stated explicitly that the complainant was African American, as if race played a part in this incident.  Maybe it does appear that way, though I never in any way intended it to be so.”

The judge also described multiple devastating personal challenges that may have contributed to his “disastrous interaction with” S.D.

The Commission concluded that, regardless of the judge’s “intentions, the impact of his comments was hurtful and demeaning, created an appearance of prejudice and partiality and detracted from the dignity of judicial office.”

Respondent angrily criticized and demeaned S.D. when he tried to reference a separate incident where the judge did not take into account that S.D. had been called by the N word.  Instead, Respondent cut S.D. off before he could fully explain.  Respondent berated S.D. for suggesting Respondent was racially biased, expressing angry hyper-reactivity that S.D. would even voice the possibility. While Respondent may well consider himself free of any racial animus, his reaction from the bench on this occasion was to insult and demean S.D. for even speaking of the bias S.D. experienced.  The nature of inherent, unconscious bias requires the actor to consider the impact of their actions and not just their subjective intent.  Conduct such as this is detrimental to the integrity of and respect for the judiciary.

Although the stipulation was about 1 hearing, the Commission stated that the judge’s conduct in the hearing with S.D. “cannot properly be considered an isolated incident” because its investigation had revealed additional incidents of intemperance that it had not investigated because the judge had left the bench, although his conduct toward S.D. was “the most egregious instance and the only one which was racially charged.”  Also in aggravation, the Commission noted that the judge’s “treatment of S.D. was traumatizing to S.D. and may have signaled to others who viewed the conduct, including law enforcement officers present in the courtroom, that S.D. was somehow deserving of such disrespect and led them to believe they could also treat him poorly.”  The Commission explained that although the judge “has consistently stated he did not consciously intend to express bias toward S.D. based on race,” “a reasonable person in S.D.’s position . . . would experience Respondent’s comments toward him as biased.”

The judge had served as a district court judge for over 13 years.  The Commission noted that immediately after the hearing with S.D., the judge “recognized that his conduct had been so inappropriate that he should no longer be a judicial officer;” he resigned effective August 8, 2023, and helped to prepare the court for his departure.  The judge also resigned from the Washington State Bar Association and told the Commission that he will no longer practice law or attempt to serve in any judicial capacity.  He has had no other public disciplinary history and cooperated with the Commission, immediately acknowledging that his conduct violated the code and demonstrating responsibility for his behavior by entering into the stipulation.

* * *
Based on a stipulation and agreement, the Washington Commission publicly admonished a judge for directing a profane comment at a defendant in court.  In re the Matter of Cruz, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 20, 2024).

On December 4, 2023, the judge presided over the arraignment of a defendant on charges of vehicle trespass and criminal trespass.  The hearing was conducted remotely, and the defendant appeared virtually from jail.  During the hearing, the defendant used profanity in most of his comments and responses.  After the judge announced the defendant’s case, the public defender indicated that the defendant did not want the public defender to represent him and that the matter could be set over to the next day for the new attorney.  The defendant objected to a continuance, but the judge said that she was going to set the matter over to the next day based on the behavior she had seen from the defendant.  The judge and the defendant then had the following exchange.

Defendant:  It’s like we’ve done that for the last three f**king dates, let’s not keep doing that.
Judge:  Well, sir…
Defendant:  And you refused last time.  What they did was a shut off and they wouldn’t reconnect it.
Judge:  Okay, sir …
Defendant:  No, listen up and listen to what the f**k I have to . . .
Judge:  No, no, f**k you then.  Okay, no.
Defendant:  F**k you, b**ch, what’s up?

After the exchange, the judge promptly recused herself from the case, promptly verbally self-reported the incident to the Commission, and filed a written complaint, which was received on December 19.

The incident became the subject of conversation in the local legal community.

In her written response to the statement of allegations, the judge admitted that she violated the code and stated that she was deeply sorry and took full responsibility for her actions.  The judge explained that at the time of the incident, she was engaged in a full-time non-judicial position and multiple pro-tem judicial positions and had overscheduled herself and was handling 2 calendars in 2 different courts, one on Zoom and one in person.  The judge said that her behavior was completely out of character and that she has not used such language in court before or since the incident.  Since the incident, the judge has, voluntarily, at her own expense, participated in continuing legal education courses focused on judicial demeanor, dealing with challenging litigants, managing stress, and avoiding burn out.

In mitigation, the Commission noted that this was an isolated incident, the judge’s action was inappropriate and spontaneous, “there is no basis to believe she intentionally or flagrantly violated her oath of office,” and the judge has no prior public discipline history.

However, it also stated:

Profanity has no place in a court proceeding, least of all when used by a judge who has an affirmative duty to maintain order.  As this Commission has previously emphasized, being a judicial officer means being civil even to those who are uncivil and rising above the chaos that sometimes occurs in court to set an example for others.

The Commission noted that an admonishment is a written action of an advisory nature that cautions a judge not to engage in certain proscribed behavior and is the least severe disciplinary action the Commission can issue, adding that “in this instance, an admonishment may help to alert other judges to the risks of unguarded comments damaging public confidence in the impartiality’ integrity and independence of the judiciary’.”