Alabama Jefferson County Judge Nakita Blocton Off Bench Amid Drug

Home , Scott Crichton (judge), The Post and Courier

Alabama Jefferson County judge Nakita Blocton off bench amid drug use, mental instability accusations Alabama.com · by Carol Robinson | [email protected] https://www.al.com/news/2021/05/jefferson-county-judge-nakita-blocton-off-bench-accused-of- forcing-staff-to-take-diet-pills-mental-instability.html

A Jefferson County domestic relations judge has been temporarily removed from the bench after a 37- page report by the Judicial Inquiry Commission accused of her mental instability and drug use, abuse of staff, attorneys and litigants and failure to promptly dispose of cases.

According to the complaint, Circuit Judge Nakita Blocton, who became a judge in 2017 and later swore in Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin, committed multiple violations of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics.

The allegations say the judge – or someone on her behalf - used Facebook aliases to communicate with, and threaten, people who had cases before her. She is alleged to have made members of her staff work extraordinarily long hours and take Phentermine – a diet pill – to “pep” them up after having worked late the night before.

“Judge Blocton’s inappropriate and abusive conduct was so persistent, so pervasive so inescapable, so diminishing of her office, and so extreme that disrepute was brought upon the judicial office itself,’' according to the report.

Birmingham attorneys Emory Anthony and Robert MacKenzie are representing Blocton and strongly deny the majority of the allegations in the scathing complaint.

“If the complaint wasn’t a legal document, it would be a libel lawsuit,” Anthony said. “Usually, I wouldn’t make a statement when dealing the Judicial Inquiry Commission, but these allegations are so embarrassing. We hope at the proper time we’ll have the right to defend these allegations and show that they’re not true. This is just out of left field.”

Blocton is the second Jefferson County judge suspended by the commission in recent months. In April, Circuit Judge Tracie Todd was charged with multiple incidents of abuse of judicial power and abandonment of the judicial role of detachment and neutrality.

Specifically, Blocton is charged with:

Pattern of ex parte communications and inappropriate comments Pattern of abuse of staff and pattern of abuse of attorneys and litigants Appearance of bias, favoritism and retaliation towards attorneys and litigants Pattern of inappropriate demeanor and indecorous behavior Pattern of inordinate delay Appearance of drug use and mental instability Pattern of dishonesty and deception Blocton, who has voluntarily been off the bench since February, was automatically suspended with pay under state rules when the charges were filed. The full complaint can be viewed here.

The commission alleges that Blocton has shown a pattern of engaging in ex parte communication with lawyers and litigants, both by telephone and through the use of numerous Facebook aliases.

“She has made (or caused to be made) numerous threats, slurs and improper comments to staff, lawyers and litigants concerning cases in front of her, concerning litigants in front of her and concerning fellow judges with whom she works,’' the complaint reads.

The communications, according to the document, began around Aug. 21, 2020 and involved aliases such as “Linda Schneider,” “Camellia Williams,” and “Jennifer Foster” to communicate with two people, both of whom were involved in a divorce case being handled in Blocton’s court. The case was later assigned to another Jefferson County judge.

One of the litigants, identified only as “A.S.,” filed a complaint against Blocton, and had begun to publicly protest about the judge, asking for her removal from the bench.

“These communications are voluminous, consist of hundreds of pages of conversations, and contain confidential information that would only be known by Judge Blocton or someone acting in her direction,’' the complaint states. “The communications are threatening to A.S. who had just filed a complaint against Judge Blocton and purport to provide legal advice to V.S. in his divorce cases against A.S.”

Those statements reportedly from Blocton or someone on her behalf, include:

“False Prophet How Much is Your White Judge Paying You” “Because you have prophesied when I did not send you, and because you caused my people to believe in a lie, you and your descendants will be punished” “THE DEVIL IS WATCHING U, PAM, ANGELA AND THE PEOPLE BEHIND U/U PLY WIT GOD I PLY WIT THE DEVIL/LEAVE THOSE BLACK WOMEN DEMOCRATS ALONE OR THE DEVIS IS GOING TO GET U” The complaint states that numerous attorneys in the domestic relations bar had been “friended” by at least two of the aliases reportedly used by Blocton.

She is alleged to have told one of her employees that she “had at least six aliases and that she used those aliases particularly with respect to A.S. via Facebook because she did not like A.S.”

The charge alleging abuse of staff states that Blocton was “verbally abusive and caustic to staff, even calling staff names. It contends the judge required her staff to work unreasonable hours with short notice and with the explicit threat that if they did not, they would be fired that day.

The complaint notes that there has been an inordinate amount of turnover on Blocton’s staff since 2017 “due to her abusive and erratic” behavior.

“In November 2020, Judge Blocton mockingly placed a ‘gold star’ on (an employee’s) clothing after she berated (the employee) for not appropriately correcting an order,’' the complaint states. “Judge Blocton told (the employee) to ‘shut the hell up.’ When (the employee) tried to leave, Judge Blocton attempted to block her from doing so.”

As for abuse of attorneys, the complaint alleges the judge keeps a mental list of attorneys she liked and didn’t like and intentionally and routinely delayed rulings on cases in which “disfavored” attorneys were involved, instructing staff to put that attorney’s case on “the bottom of the stack.”

One attorney told the commission that Blocton kept the parties in court from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m.

Another attorney said that in May 2019, he or she asked for a continuance because the attorney had flu- related symptoms.

The attorney gave Blocton a doctor’s note, but “Judge Blocton called the attorney’s doctor from the bench in open court with other attorneys present to confirm the diagnosis, and Judge Blocton proceeded to discuss the attorney’s condition, in clear violation of HIPPAA rules.”

Blocton then refused to delay the hearing and an unprepared associate had to move forward with the case.

“Since 2018, Judge Blocton has routinely failed – for months and even years – to issue final judgements in uncontested divorces, many of which involve critical spousal support and child custody issues,’' according to the complaint. Some have waited more than two years, and are still waiting, final rulings after proposed orders were submitted, and some have had to hire private judges to finalize the cases.

When Blocton took the bench in 2017, she inherited about 425 to 450 cases, which the complaint stated is considered a manageable caseload.

The number nearly doubled in 2017-2018.

“Long before the COVID-19 health crisis began, and well before Judge Blocton endured the traumatic loss of her father to COVID-19 in March 2020, which was followed by the unexpected death of her grandfather, numerous attorneys in the domestic relations bar have asserted that her chambers was ‘chaos’ and ‘poorly supervised,’’' according to the complaint.

Blocton in April 2020 shared extensively with AL.com about her father’s sudden illness, his eventual death and the aftermath of trying to identify his body and plan a funeral.

The complaint alleges Blocton has used and been under the influence of prescription pills in her chambers including, but not limited to, Phentermine.

“These pills created behavioral changes in Judge Blocton while she was performing her judicial duties, including but not limited to, becoming hyper-talkative and hyper-somnolent (when person experiences significant episodes of sleepiness) in chambers and on the bench, exhibiting paranoid behavior, such as talking in circles about the same topic for hours and expressing a belief that the commission or someone at its direction is ‘going to kill her.’’'

“Judge Blocton has also consistently stayed at the courthouse overnight, presumably trying to work, and has told others that she does not sleep for days at a time,’' the complaint states.

The judge, according to the commission, routinely displayed a pattern of dishonesty and deception, including sending a letter under an alias with false information to help a cousin obtain a mortgage,

3 instructing an employee to make an improper campaign contribution through Venmo to a mayoral campaign, and to try coach and intimidate people who were called to testify before the commission in the case against her.

“We are very disappointed that the Judicial Inquiry Commission took the position to file a complaint against Judge Blocton,’' Anthony said. “About 10 days ago, or more, we filed a notice for mediation. They did not answer that notice and instead filed a complaint against her.”

“We deny all allegations concerning her giving anybody any pills, we deny the allegation that she has been communicating ex parte with lawyers or participants, we deny their issue that she has been overusing some type of drug medication, we deny the issue that she has been communicating with anybody by Facebook, we deny the issue that she sent her cousin some kind of paperwork to do a mortgage, which would be fraud,’' Anthony said.

“We have attempted to work with them to try to say these are disgruntled employees of hers,’' he said. “One of the young ladies is a young lady who took off against all of the judges in domestic relations.”

Blocton, Anthony said, voluntarily got drug tested, and the paperwork was returned saying there was no reason for her to not be on the bench. In an effort to discredit these people accusing her of sending Facebook messages and taking pills, Blocton took a polygraph test, which Anthony said she passed.

“We’re very disappointed they’ve taken this position to very publicly embarrass her with these allegations,’' he said.

Blocton is dealing with a delay on her docket because of COVID, and from dealing with the deaths of her father and grandfather. “We do need to address the issue concerning orders, and we will do that,’' Anthony said.

“All these issues they’re coming up with, they’re required to give us transcripts of who they interviewed,’' he said. “It’s unbelievable that they’re moving forward on some of these allegations because they don’t have any proof.”

Alabama.com · by Carol Robinson | [email protected]

Alabama Alabama judge faces more than 100 racism, sexism allegations in scathing complaint NBC News · by Erik Ortiz · May 19, 2021 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-s-judge-s-moral-standard-allegations-racism-sexism- spotlight-n1267823 central role in the most significant moments of people's lives in Talladega County, about 50 miles east of Birmingham. Jinks, the county's chief election official, has overseen adoptions and guardianships, mental health commitments and the issuing of marriage licenses.

Behind the scenes, employees accuse Jinks, 65, of cultivating a toxic and hostile workplace that undermined the integrity of his office.

More than 100 allegations were outlined in a scathing 78-page complaint issued in March by the Judicial Inquiry Commission, the state body that reviews complaints against judges, detailing racist and sexist conversations that employees claim Jinks initiated, including talking about pornography and a video of a woman doing a striptease. Some allege that he made disparaging remarks about George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter movement, Black people who came into the office and the office's sole Black employee.

Some employees also allege that Jinks, who is white, used profane language and threw tantrums, once going on a tirade after his sandwich went missing from a refrigerator, and that he tried to use the power of his position to get or grant favors.

The complaint, which is based on interviews with current and former employees of the Talladega County Probate Office, accuses Jinks of exhibiting a pattern of behavior "that has created a difficult, unprofessional, and inappropriate atmosphere," which has "injured respect for the judiciary."

Jinks is accused of violating the state Canons of Judicial Ethics, the guidelines that say judges must uphold the honor of the judiciary, maintain decorum and avoid impropriety. He has denied the majority of the accusations, saying some of the incidents have been taken out of context, and he is fighting the allegations in the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.

Jinks was suspended in March and will remain suspended until the court decides whether the claims warrant punishment, including a longer suspension or removal from office. No trial date has been set.

"I am a decent person," Jinks said in an interview on local television station WOTM in March. "I am very respectful around women. I do not use racial slurs. I do not go on tirades in office. I do get mad if somebody steals my food."

In a 44-page answer to the complaint filed in April, Jinks denies "any inappropriate demeanor regarding African Americans" and said the complaint "contains flagrant, false, vague and subjective accusations."

The case, which continues, has put a spotlight on how often complaints against judges in the state are reviewed and whether the mechanism to punish judges for misconduct or ethics violations is sufficient.

"In the past, there have been individuals on the Judicial Inquiry Commission that have had a less strict view of judges' adhering to the rules, and they simply were not really open to removing judges," said

Sue Bell Cobb, who retired as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2011 and has advocated for reforms. "Judges should be held to a higher standard. End of story."

'Grossly inappropriate demeanor' Jinks won his probate judge race in November 2018, defeating his Democratic opponent by more than 5,000 votes and becoming the first Republican elected to the office in Talladega County.

Probate judges are elected to six-year terms in Alabama, and nearly every county, including Talladega, doesn't require them to have law degrees or to be lawyers, unlike probate judges in most other states. Jinks is a former program director for the Alabama State Parks, and he had worked on the campaign of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, who left office in 2011.

"I felt the time was right," Jinks told The Daily Home newspaper of Talladega in 2018 about why he ran for the judgeship. "The man upstairs wanted me to do this."

According to the Judicial Inquiry Commission's complaint, which identifies employees only by their initials, Jinks' "grossly inappropriate demeanor" didn't begin immediately; instead, it ramped up about six months into his judgeship.

The employees say he would mouth a racial slur "on occasions" to his deputy chief clerk when he was referring to a Black person. One time, after a Black couple had been in the office to fill out a marriage certificate, he said, "What did their Black asses want?" an employee recalled, according to the complaint.

He is also accused of having spoken disparagingly about the Black Lives Matter movement and the protests that erupted across the country after Floyd was killed in police custody in Minneapolis a year ago.

Employees say he commented that "I don't see anything wrong with the police killing him" and that "he pretty much got what he deserved."

Jinks would also play uncensored videos of racial justice protests that included racial slurs and profane language loud enough that they could be "heard by others outside his office, including any customers at the front counter," according to the complaint.

Employees say that last June, when news reports surfaced that Bubba Wallace, the only Black driver in NASCAR's top series, had found a noose in his garage stall at Talladega Superspeedway, Jinks commented that Wallace was "just playing the Black card."

The only Black employee among the nine or so people who worked under Jinks at the probate office says in the complaint that Jinks would aim racist and unprofessional comments at him.

"He was a wolf in sheep's clothing," the man, Darrius Pearson, who joined the office as a clerk in 2018 under the previous probate judge, told NBC News. Pearson said that he had even voted for Jinks but that after months of humiliating and withering comments, he quit in November and wanted to come forward publicly.

Pearson said that in May 2019, Jinks saw his new car and said that he, as a judge, couldn't afford one. "What are you doing? Selling drugs?" Jinks said, according to Pearson.

Last September, Pearson returned to work after a trip to the post office about the same time that students from Talladega College, a private historically Black college, were marching in support of Black Lives Matter. He said Jinks asked him repeatedly whether he had joined the demonstration.

"I don't want nothing to have to happen to your job, you out there marching — marching 'Black Lives Matter' during county time," Jinks said before he walked off laughing, according to Pearson and the complaint.

The complaint says employees felt uncomfortable and embarrassed by Jinks' "inappropriate demeanor" toward Pearson and other Black people.

Jinks, who is married with a daughter, is also accused of using demeaning language about women and talking openly about sex. Pearson said that in July, around the time of a Republican runoff election in Alabama's U.S. Senate race, Jinks showed him a video of a woman doing a striptease while they were in an election room.

Pearson said he told Jinks he didn't want to look at the video.

Another time, Jinks told a female employee: "I like porn. Don't you?" according to the complaint. He is also accused of having commented about an employee's breasts and stared at her body, as well as having made other female employees uncomfortable. Employees said he also routinely commented about the physical appearance of female lawyers and spoke derisively about women with tattoos or about their body size.

"Don't ever marry a woman. She'll get fat," he said after he saw a photo of a female employee in her wedding dress, according to the complaint. Jinks' comments about the employee's weight were "so prevalent as to give her the impression that her weight matters more to him than her work performance," the complaint said.

Pearson, who had been the only male employee in the office, said Jinks gave him a birthday card in September featuring a cartoon cow and donkey and the message "Thought you'd like to see some teats and ass on your birthday!" The card, which was shared with NBC News, is signed, "Have a Great B'day. Randy."

A birthday card given to Darrius Pearson.Courtesy Darrius Pearson Other employees refused to sign it, according to Pearson and the complaint. Jinks didn't deny having given the card but said in his response to the commission that "office humor has been overblown."

The complaint also says Jinks' county-owned cellphone was used to look at a website that sold sex products and to view provocative photos of women. It says he lent the phone to a felon whom he met when she was waitressing.

In addition, the complaint details allegations accusing Jinks of having abused the prestige of his judicial office by asking a prosecutor in a neighboring county to help the felon and release her early from her sentence on a narcotics-related charge.

The district attorney denied the request, saying it was inappropriate, according to the complaint, which said that Jinks tried to solicit the help of attorneys who appeared before his court to get the felon an early release and that he eventually succeeded.

Amanda Hardy, Jinks' attorney, said that the complaints were "concocted by a few disgruntled" employees and that the commission's complaint "fails to mention all exculpatory evidence and testimony." She said allegations that Jinks is racist were "fabricated to generate antagonism with the public, the Court of Judiciary, and the media."

In his response to the allegations, Jinks mostly denied what employees told the Judicial Inquiry Commission, according to the complaint.

He specifically denied the disparaging remarks about staring at women's bodies in the office and in court, as well as talking about body weight, among other accusations. He also said he couldn't remember certain actions he is accused of, such as telling an employee that he likes porn, according to the complaint.

He also denied having made remarks about Floyd.

"The Respondent believes ... that there exists no excuse for the killing of George Floyd, that watching the video is sickening, unconscionable, inhumane and horrifying," Jinks said in written answers to the complaint. In regard to Pearson's version of events about Black Lives Matter protests, Jinks "adamantly denies any communication, implied or expressed, that Mr. Pearson should not participate in any way with the Black Lives Matter march or the like."

Jinks also told the commission that if he did make certain comments, they were in a personal and private capacity, and that employees were eavesdropping or should have asked him to shut his door.

He said that comments people say they heard may have been taken out of context or were misunderstood jokes and that if he had been told that something was "racially or sexually insensitive and offensive," he would have "responded in a serious manner." Jinks didn't deny the interaction involving the striptease video that Pearson said he was shown, but he told the commission that it was played for three seconds or less.

In his written response, he said that "sharing the video amounted to a lapse in judgment, the significance of which has been exaggerated."

Jinks denied having asked for favors to help a felon, saying in his answer to the complaint that his helping her "was purely a ministry, in which no appearance of impropriety and/or expectation of judicial favor can reasonably be inferred."

Pearson said the complaints were a collaborative effort by employees who feared retaliation for speaking out but were fed up with Jinks.

"He is very arrogant, pompous, and he thought he couldn't be touched," Pearson said.

The complaint doesn't specify any grievances or allegations made by litigants, attorneys or members of the public, and it doesn't say any of Jinks' rulings were affected by his alleged misconduct.

Still, Jenny Carroll, a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, said that it matters how judges behave outside the courtroom and in front of office staff and that comments that appear to be inappropriate can call into question how they came to rulings.

"What if people coming before you are women and Black? If they don't get the outcome they wanted, they'll be wondering was it because their claim wasn't strong enough or perhaps the judge carries explicit biases," Carroll said. "The bottom line is it's going to raise doubts in people's minds."

Most complaints dismissed The nine-member state Judicial Inquiry Commission, which is made up of judges, lawyers and private citizens, gets scores of complaints about judges every fiscal year, many of which fail to rise to the level of formal charges to be filed with the Court of the Judiciary, which is also a mix of legal professionals and laypeople.

The commission said it reviewed 174 complaints against judges in fiscal year 2018 and dismissed 132 of them without investigation, citing reasons such as that there was no reasonable basis to charge, that no ethical violation was determined or that a case wasn't within its jurisdiction. Of 18 investigations that were completed, all of the related complaints were dismissed, the commission said.

Ultimately, the commission filed no charges against judges in the Court of the Judiciary during fiscal year 2018. Cases are often settled with judges before trials are held, and judges may decide to retire or resign to avoid public scrutiny, Carroll said.

In rarer cases, judges are removed from the bench. That happened to Roy Moore, the former state chief justice, who was ousted twice for defying federal court orders. Moore's appeals were rejected.

The commission didn't immediately respond to requests for further information. Chairman Billy Bedsole, a lawyer, also didn't immediately reply to requests for comment.

Cobb, the former state chief justice, said changes are needed in the complaint process so people are comfortable coming forward. Currently, she said, the commission's process is too lenient toward judges, who are notified and kept apprised of investigations and also get copies of subpoenas given to witnesses.

Cobb said that gives judges the opportunity to use their influence and potentially put pressure on people to dissuade them from filing complaints for fear of retaliation.

She said reforms should include doing away with notifying judges about who filed complaints and directing more state funding toward the Judicial Inquiry Commission so investigations don't have to languish and all complaints can be fully reviewed, not just the most egregious cases.

Carroll said that even after a judge who clearly violated ethical standards is removed, other issues deserve scrutiny, such as identifying cases in which people were the victims of unfair and impartial rulings and offering remediation. "Getting problem judges off the bench is only a piece of the problem," she said.

Colorado Judge Natalie Chase Now Says Her Resignation Over N-Word Was Forced, Unfair denver.cbslocal.com May 28, 2021 at 4:37 pm https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/05/28/natalie-chase-arapahoe-county/

CENTENNIAL, Colo. (CBS4)– Arapahoe County District Court Judge Natalie Chase says in a new court filing she was forced to resign and accept a public censure in what she describes as “judicial wilding”: an inherently unfair proceeding that lacked due process and that she was treated far more harshly than male judges are treated.

The newly filed motion, obtained by CBS4, represents Chase’s first public response to her resignation, which takes effect Monday, May 31, and censure over her use of a racial slur and insensitive comments.

On April 16, Chase reached an agreement with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline to resign and accept a public censure for use of the N-word with court employees who are Black, for making insensitive comments to Black court employees, directing her law clerk to do legal research on a personal family issue and discussing personal and family matters with employees in office work areas “in a manner that was not dignified or courteous.”

Chase was not accused of calling anyone the N-word, but of discussing the word with an employee.

Although Judge Chase expressed remorse and apologized for her conduct and agreed to the discipline, she is now seeking an injunction from the Colorado Supreme Court to stop her resignation. In the document filed this week, Chase said she “was denied any semblance of due process” by the Commission on Judicial Discipline.

“Judge Chase was forced to resign and accept a public censure,” reads the document, which goes on to state that Chase signed the April agreement “under duress and threats conveyed by the Colorado Judicial Discipline Commission.”

Contacted by phone Friday, Chase’s attorney said he could not comment on the new motion seeking reconsideration of her resignation.

Cheryl Stevens, Clerk of the Colorado Supreme Court, told CBS4 the newly unfolding events are “unique” but she was unsure if the Supreme Court would act on Chase’s motion before her resignation takes effect on Monday.

The reconsideration motion alleges the judicial commission “threatened unwarranted and more severe punishment if any… due process rights were pressed by her or advocate for her.” Chase says the Commission intended to mete out “harsher punishment” if she attempted to defend herself.

The filing notes that male judges who have acted unprofessionally have not lost their jobs.

“This jurist’s treatment was unique and driven by a force other than the law,” states the legal motion. “It was personal.”

In addition to asking that her resignation and censure be at least temporarily lifted, Chase is asking to appear in court and make oral arguments.

CBS4 Investigator Brian Maass has been with the station more than 30 years uncovering waste, fraud and corruption.

Georgia Judge faces charges for allegedly assaulting shackled inmate ajc.com · by Bill Rankin, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-news/judge-faces-charges-for-allegedly-assaulting-shackled- inmate/FZM5UFN33FDH5LVB3TZIWJAO44/ May 10, 2021

After being cursed at by an inmate at the close of a hearing, a Crawford County judge followed the man out into the hallway and assaulted him, according to ethics charges recently filed by the state’s judicial watchdog agency.

The charges were brought against Chief Magistrate Cary Hays III, who was sworn into office in January 2017. The inmate, whose name was not disclosed, was both handcuffed and shackled at his feet when he was assaulted, said the complaint, filed by the investigative panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

“I did not injure the guy in any way,” Hays told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday.

“The inmate continued to curse me over and over and over and over again,” the judge said. “At some point, I’d just heard enough of it.”

On Dec. 18, 2020, Hays presided over a first appearance hearing for a man recently taken into custody. When Hays set a bond the man didn’t like, the man began cursing at Hays, the complaint said.

Hays and the inmate both got into it verbally and when the man was being taken out into a hallway, he turned and cursed at Hays again. Hays then followed the man out into the hallway, grabbed him and pushed him into and up against the wall, the complaint said.

Before Hays assaulted the man, the inmate never physically threatened the judge or tried to escape, the complaint said. It added that the GBI has an open and ongoing criminal investigation against Hays.

The complaint noted that Hays acknowledged to a Judicial Qualifications Commission investigator that he followed the inmate into the hallway, grabbed him and pushed him up against the wall. It also said the entire incident was captured on video by a security camera.

“The inmate continued to curse me over and over and over and over again. … At some point, I'd just heard enough of it."

Hays told the AJC that he knew from the get-go there were security cameras that would record what happened. What he did not know was that the camera did not record what was being said.

“I only wish the commission could have heard it,” Hays said. “I think they would have viewed this differently.”

Chuck Boring, director of the watchdog agency, said, “The formal charging document speaks for itself.”

The case now goes before the JQC’s hearing panel, which will decide whether to recommend to the Georgia Supreme Court if any punishment should be imposed against Hays. Potential punishment ranges from a reprimand to removal from office.

Kentucky Judge On Search Warrant Task Force Disciplined For Public Opinions on Search Warrant Procedure – 89.3 WFPL News Louisville wfpl.org · by Jacob Ryan May 12, 2021 https://wfpl.org/judge-on-search-warrant-task-force-disciplined-for-public-opinions-on-search-warrant- procedure/

A member of the Kentucky Attorney General’s search warrant task force was sanctioned this year for publicly defending the search warrant process and the judge who approved the warrant for Breonna Taylor’s home.

Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Charles Cunningham received a private reprimand from the Judicial Conduct Commission in January for comments he made in an op-ed published in The Courier Journal. The reprimand doesn’t name Cunningham, but he confirmed to KyCIR that he is the subject of the disciplinary action.

Cunningham was publicly named last week as a member of the task force the attorney general will charge with scrutinizing and suggesting possible reforms for how search warrants are obtained and executed in Kentucky.

In the opinion article published last July, Cunningham shot down the need to randomize search warrant assignments to judges and to record their conversations with law enforcement officers seeking warrants. Both were reforms proposed in an earlier op-ed by Louisville attorney Ted Shouse.

Cunningham went on to defend the integrity of the judge who signed the much criticized search warrant that led to Taylor’s killing.

That warrant is still the focus of an ongoing federal investigation, and the Louisville Metro Police Department fired the officer who obtained it, alleging he lied in his affidavit.

The judicial commission ruled that Cunningham violated the Judicial Code of Conduct by making comments that could affect the outcome or impair the fairness of impending court matters. By personally attacking a local attorney, Cunningham failed to uphold a standard of patience, dignity and courtesy required of judges in Kentucky, the reprimand said.

Cunningham has been on the bench since 2008.

He said in an interview this week that “there is no basis for someone to contend that Charlie Cunningham’s mind is made up” regarding the system of issuing search warrants.

“I never said the policy is perfect,” he said.

Criminal justice reform advocates say the judge’s actions go beyond a mere violation of rules, and instead serve as proof that the deck is stacked against any effort to change the system of search warrant issuance.

“I think it does call into question the viewpoint diversity on that task force,” said Corey Shapiro, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. “We already had concerns that it was not fully representative of what the community wanted to see.”

One judicial ethics expert said Cunningham’s comments — and his position as a sitting judge — should disqualify him from serving on the task force.

“Judges ought to stay the hell out of politics,” said Charles W. Wolfram, a professor emeritus at Cornell Law School. “I find it very disturbing.”

Wolfram said no sitting judge should have been tapped to serve on the task force, which could influence policy decisions. A better choice, he said, could be a retired judge with knowledge of how the system works but no stake in it, or an expert who studies the process of warrant issuance.

“It’s a real mistake and not consistent with the independence of the judicial code for judges to be taking policy positions on political issues,” he said.

Cunningham is one of two current judges the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Minton, appointed to serve on the search warrant task force. Christian County District Court Judge Foster Cottoff will also serve on the task force.

In an emailed statement, Minton’s spokesperson said the chief justice “is confident in Judge Cunningham’s ability to serve impartially on the attorney general’s task force.”

Jefferson Circuit Court Chief Judge Angela McCormick Bisig declined to comment on the particulars of the sanction against Cunningham, but defended the judge, calling him a “hard working, thoughtful colleague.”

Cameron’s spokesperson, in an emailed statement, did not directly address the disciplinary action levied against Cunningham, nor did she respond to the question of if Cunningham should be removed from the group.

“The members of the task force represent every aspect of the search warrant process, and each member will bring his or her own opinions, experiences, and ideas to bear as part of the conversation,” she said.

Task Force Slow To Start

Cameron formed the search warrant task force as a direct result of the police killing of Breonna Taylor. He announced it during a September 2020 press conference, after a grand jury convened by his office brought no criminal charges for the death of Breonna Taylor, 26, who LMPD officers shot and killed in her home during the execution of a search warrant.

Cameron formally launched the task force with an executive order in January.

Now, nearly eight months since the announcement, it hasn’t met. It’s first meeting is set for May 24. Cameron announced the group’s members last week, after KyCIR asked for comment about the task force’s inaction.

Cameron told WDRB News in an interview broadcast on Tuesday that he is hopeful the task force will propel Kentucky to be a national model for how search warrants are processed.

Taylor’s killing sparked change at the executive and legislative branches of government, but judges have been averse to adopting any notable changes. In November 2020, Jefferson District Court judges voted down a proposal from fellow district judge Julie Kaelin that aimed to bring more transparency and oversight to the search warrant system.

Jefferson Circuit Court judges did take one step to promote transparency, however, after a report from KyCIR and WDRB News found their signatures on search warrants were often illegible: The judges began using stamps imprinted with their name.

A Spat in the Papers

Cunningham’s article was a direct response to an op-ed penned by local defense attorney Ted Shouse. He called for pointed reforms to how warrants are issued in articles published by The Courier Journal and in the Louisville Bar Association newsletter.

Shouse wrote that the communication between judges and the law enforcement officers who seek a warrant should be recorded. Additionally, he said there should be a process to randomly assign judges to review search warrants.

Cunningham responded sharply. He shot down the necessity and practicality of the reforms and accused Shouse of trying to mislead the public to gain support for changes that would serve the interests of defense attorneys and defendants.

“Those sorts of misstatements can be chalked up to ignorance,” Cunningham wrote.

The commission noted the judge’s tone in its ruling that Cunningham violated a provision of the Judicial Code of Conduct that requires judges by “patient, dignified and courteous to lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.”

In an interview this week, Shouse dismissed the squabble as a side-show.

“I’ve been called names before,” he said. “The real issue here is that Breonna Taylor was killed by Louisville police officers and it was a search warrant that brought those officers to her door.”

In his op-ed, Cunningham defended Circuit Judge Mary Shaw, who issued that warrant, and her process for that particular warrant.

“Judge Shaw did nothing wrong,” Cunningham wrote. “She methodically applied the law as it then existed to the facts as presented to her.”

The Judicial Conduct Commission ruled that Cunningham’s specific comments violated a rule that prohibits judges from “making public statements which might reasonably be expected to impair the fairness of a matter impending in any court.”

Shapiro, with the ACLU of Kentucky, said in defending Shaw, Cunningham showed a troubling bias that permeates the courts — “that judges can do no wrong.”

When asked if he regrets penning the op-ed, Cunningham declined to comment.

Judicial Discipline Rare, Somewhat Secret

Cunningham has been sanctioned at least twice by the Judicial Conduct Commission since 2013, according to records of judicial disciplinary actions maintained on the commissions website.

In 2018, the commission ruled that Cunningham had failed to notify prosecutors of certain court actions and talked to a defendant’s counsel without the prosecutor’s knowledge. For that, he was publicly reprimanded.

The group issues just a handful of sanctions each year — no more than eight each year since 2013 — and the members don’t discuss their work.

The Judicial Conduct Commission consists of six members and four alternate members, which include judges, attorneys and citizens. The chair, R. Michael Sullivan, an Owensboro attorney, said the group is bound by its rules to keep mum on any investigative matters or disciplinary actions.

Nationally, discipline against judges is also somewhat rare. In 2020, at least 127 sanctions were levied against sitting state judges across the country, according to a report from the National Center for State Courts.

Cynthia Gray, who compiles data about each disciplinary action for the center, said some judges will take the sanctions to heart and try to learn from their mistakes. Others, though, she said, will double down.

A sanction stemming from an op-ed is rare, Gray said. Judges are instead commonly disciplined for demeaning or belittling defendants or attorneys in open court, or for posts to social media.

As for making public comments, there is value in getting an inside look at what a judge thinks about certain issues, especially those that pertain to the administration of justice, said Kevin S. Burke, a former district court judge from Minneapolis.

“Just because you’re a judge doesn’t mean I can’t talk about things about the criminal justice system,” he said. “But you have to be careful, there is a fine line.”

And perhaps most of all, they shouldn’t be rude, Burke said — pointing to a quote from the former attorney and politician Morris Udall, who asked God to “give me the grace to make my words gentle and tender, for tomorrow I might eat them.”

Contact Jacob Ryan at [email protected]. wfpl.org · by Jacob Ryan

Kentucky Judge reprimanded for defense of peer accused of rubber-stamping Breonna Taylor warrant courier-journal.com https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2021/05/12/judge-reprimanded- defending-peer-who-signed-breonna-taylor-warrant/5059815001/

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Jefferson Circuit Court judge was sanctioned for his choice of words in defending another judge accused of "rubber-stamping" search warrants in the Breonna Taylor case.

The Judicial Conduct Commission said Judge Charles Cunningham in a guest editorial in The Courier Journal violated an ethics rule that requires judges to be “patient, dignified and courteous to lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.”

The commission said Cunningham, in his piece defending Circuit Judge Mary Shaw, violated a portion of the rule that prohibits members of the judiciary from making public statements that might “reasonably be expected to impair the fairness of a matter pending in any court.”

Shaw did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Cunningham declined to comment.

The sanction, issued Jan. 8 but recently obtained by The Courier Journal, was a private reprimand that did not mention Cunningham by name but clearly was in reference to his response to a guest editorial in which Louisville attorney Ted Shouse criticized Shaw for issuing five no-knock warrants in 12 minutes, including the one for Taylor’s home that resulted in her fatal shooting by Louisville police officers.

“I could not read five warrant applications in 12 minutes — much less ask questions about them and feel comfortable signing my name to each one,” Shouse wrote on June 22, 2020.

Responding eight days later, Cunningham said Shouse’s piece was "so full of misleading assertions that the record needs to be set straight."

In a two-page opinion, the Judicial Conduct Commission said Cunningham called Shouse’s commentary “false” and “bogus” and based on “ignorance, misstatements, nonsense and a lie."

The panel acknowledged Cunningham intended to educate the public on the judicial process, which is permitted, but said judges “must be sensitive to the need to remain impartial” and refrain from commenting on a “particular event and judge involved in that event.”

Cunningham wrote Shouse’s claim that Shaw took only 12 minutes to review the search warrant applications was false because that only represented the time it took her to sign them, not the time it took to review them.

He said Shaw, whose courtroom adjoins his, "spent a lot of time reviewing these applications."

He said she has received “undeserved criticism and even death threats for doing her job.”

Cunningham also wrote Shouse’s claim the search warrants are “invariably” signed by Jefferson County judges is a “lie.”

Shouse proposed several reforms in the search warrant process, including assigning judges at random to consider applications and recording the interaction between judges and officers.

The no-knock search warrant LMPD officers obtained for Breonna Taylor's home has been targeted for containing false and misleading information.

Detective Joshua Jaynes, who obtained the search warrant, was fired after police officials determined he hadn't been truthful in his warrant application, contending he had verified with postal inspectors that Taylor's ex-boyfriend, a convicted drug trafficker, had been receiving packages at her apartment.

In fact, postal inspectors said there was no evidence Taylor was receiving suspicious packages.

LMPD detectives used the search warrant to break into Taylor's apartment shortly before 1 a.m. March 13, 2020, looking for drugs and cash as part of a larger narcotics investigation.

Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired a shot, saying later he thought an intruder was breaking in.

The shot hit a police sergeant in the leg, and three officers fired 32 shots in return, hitting Taylor six times.

She wasn't armed and died in her hallway. No drugs were recovered from the apartment.

No one was been charged with Taylor's death, although one detective was indicted on three counts of wanton endangerment for firing shots into an adjoining occupied apartment. courier-journal.com

Louisiana Louisiana Supreme Court justice admits misconduct; here's how his colleagues disciplined him nola.com · by JOHN SIMERMAN | Staff writer https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_8af0529a-d9d5-11eb-818d-4384ef5a02b0.html

Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Jefferson Hughes III has admitted he committed judicial misconduct and has agreed to pay more than $2,000 over a visit in 2019 to the home of a Hammond political operative who said Hughes offered him $5,000 to switch allegiances in the race for a different seat on the state’s highest court.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday endorsed an agreement between Hughes and the Louisiana Judiciary Commission to publicly censure him over violations of several judicial canons.

Hughes, the court’s second-longest serving judge, admitted bringing disrepute on the judiciary when he met with former Hammond councilman Johnny Blount on Oct. 30, 2019.

Blount supported Will Crain in a runoff against 5th Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Hans Liljeberg for an open seat alongside Hughes on the high court.

In an affidavit, Blount said Hughes offered him $5,000 to switch his support to Liljeberg and left this business card “to call him if I decided to accept his offer.”

Hughes denied offering Blount a payoff, though he acknowledged he told Blount that he might find it more financially rewarding to back Liljeberg.

Crain won the race. He and Hughes both were recused from the vote to accept the agreement to censure Hughes.

The Supreme Court decision Wednesday said Hughes “acknowledges that his conduct and subsequent events flowing from it undermined the public’s confidence in the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary and brought the judiciary into disrepute.”

Hughes “accordingly acknowledges the imposition of discipline is appropriate,” the ruling states.

Justice Scott Crichton penned the ruling. He was joined in the decision to accept the discipline by Justices James Genovese, Jay McCallum and Piper Griffin.

Chief Justice John Weimer dissented, arguing that the court should put on a public hearing to air the allegations against Hughes.

Crichton's opinion noted that Hughes, a Republican, has been a state judge since 1991, rising from district judge in Livingston Parish to the First Circuit Court of Appeal in 2004 and then the Supreme Court in 2012.

Hughes was reelected without opposition in 2018 and will be aged out of office following his 10-year term.

The court filings about Hughes’ discipline do not shed any light on previous Judiciary Commission and FBI investigations into Hughes, which wrapped in 2004. Hughes wrote a series of secret apology letters in the early 2000s to people who appeared in his Livingston Parish courtroom over family law cases, professing his sorrow over how he had treated their cases.

The letters, which The Advocate |The Times-Picayune obtained and reported on in 2019, went to families who were in the middle of custody battles. Hughes penned one to Brenda Nicholson, a grandmother who was fighting for custody of her grandson amid a child abuse case involving the stepfather.

Hughes had been in a romantic relationship with the attorney who represented the boy’s stepfather and mother. Nicholson argued that Hughes had her jailed for 11 days because of his own personal interest in the custody case; Hughes has defended himself by saying that the attorney left the case before he rendered his final custody ruling.

“I am writing to apologize to you for my actions,” Hughes later wrote to Nicholson. “I have come to the conclusion that my actions were inimical to the pursuit of the truth and that, because of my actions, justice suffered. For this I am deeply remorseful.”

Hughes wrote a second apology letter to David Fleming and a third to Fleming’s attorney in 2004, after Fleming also fought for custody of his sons in Hughes’ courtroom. Fleming tried to have Hughes recused from the case, but Hughes fought back, filing writ applications with higher courts to stay on the custody case.

“I am writing to apologize to you for any inconvenience, aggravation, extra work, or costs caused to you by my actions,” Hughes later wrote to Fleming. “I made mistakes in the way I handled the case of Fleming v. Fleming and for this I am deeply sorry.”

The outcome of the past Judiciary Commission investigation into Hughes has remained walled off in secrecy, despite the Louisiana Supreme Court adopting a rule change last year that allows discussion of Judiciary Commission cases once their files have closed. Though Hughes wrote the apology letters, it remains unclear whether he did so under orders of the Judiciary Commission and whether he received any additional punishment.

Voters had no way of knowing about the previous discipline when they elected Hughes to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004, or to the Louisiana Supreme Court for the first time in 2012.

Nevada I-Team: A ‘scorched earth’ behind-the-scenes battle over judicial discipline 8newsnow.com · by 8NewsNow staff https://www.8newsnow.com/i-team/i-team-a-scorched-earth-behind-the-scenes-battle-over-judicial- discipline/

LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Bitter accusations have been traded back and forth in a series of letters involving Nevada’s Judicial Discipline Commission.

The executive director of the commission has accused Las Vegas attorneys of using “scorched earth” tactics in their defense of embattled Justice of the Peace Melanie Tobiasson. The attorneys fired back, arguing that the executive director and the commission have targeted female judges over trivial matters and have tried to muzzle their First Amendment rights.

The judicial commission has pursued Tobiasson for possible disciplinary measures, in part because of statements she made in an interview with the 8 News Now I-Team. In that interview, Tobiasson complained that local law enforcement agencies failed to investigate a sex trafficking operation that tried to recruit her own daughter, and the daughters of other prominent Las Vegans, into working as prostitutes. Tobiasson’s lead attorney, Marc Cook, filed a lawsuit in federal court, accusing the NJDC and others of attempting to stifle Tobiasson’s First Amendment rights.

“It’s appropriate for federal court because it’s First Amendment. Second, we need an impartial panel, which would be the federal judge in this case, to decide these issues. Because it’s pretty clear at this point we are not getting any level of objectivity or impartiality in front of the judicial disciplinary commission. So we filed it in federal court and the reason we filed it is essentially, the bulk of the allegations against Judge Tobiasson revolve around the fact that she reported potential sex trafficking issues and issues relating to pimps trying to victimize teenage women,” Cook said during a March 9, 2021 interview with the I-Team.

In a February letter to top Nevada officials, including state legislators, Cook described the unprecedented level of resources the commission had devoted to the Tobiasson complaint, assigning four attorneys to work on the case along with private investigators. Cook says the effort consumed more than 70% of the discipline commission’s budget.

“Well, the cases against Judge Tobiasson in this action have been going on in excess of two years, even before they filed it, which as an aside exceeds their statute of limitations,” Cook says. “But they made up a rule to go after her anyway, beyond that period of time.”

“But we know in the last year, and again, that’s only half of the period of time, less than half of the period of time they’ve had this case, they’ve represented in the legislature, that they’ve spent 75% of their funds on her — on her case — they’ve been tenacious with this, they’ve gone after her for free speech issues. They’ve gone after her based on the clothes she wore, the thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars they spent investigating the clothes she wears under her robe, unseen by anybody who is in front of her in her capacity as a judge, and the criticisms they’ve gone after and completely fabricated,” Cook said during a March 9, 2021 interview with the I-Team.

Executive Director and General Counsel of the commission, Paul Deyhle, fired back at Cook’s allegations

In a March 3, 2021 letter addressed to Gov. Steve Sisolak and copied to several other Nevada officials, Deyhle accused Tobiasson’s lawyers of “false and contrived allegations of bias, bad faith, conflicts of interest, recklessness, failure to follow the law and other meritless collusion, collaboration and secret (star chamber) conspiracy theories in proceedings and matters before the commission, the Nevada Supreme Court … .”

Deyle’s letter said he had no intention of responding to Cook’s “groundless attacks,” but then did so anyway. “Mr. Cook has relentlessly employed and continues to engage in the following scorched earth tactics, including, but not limited to, (i) threatening to file attorney discipline complaints with the State Bar of Nevada against me, as General Counsel and Executive Director of the commission, as well as the Commission’s prosecuting officers, for pursuing and prosecuting the Commission’s disciplinary case against his client; (ii) serving and/or attempting to serve subpoenas on the spouses and co-workers of certain Commission investigators who have nothing to do with the Commission’s disciplinary case against his client….”

Deyhle argued that Cook’s tactics on behalf of the judge have helped document the need to expand the budget and resources available to the commission.

The pressure and expense of the two-year disciplinary tussle prompted Judge Tobiasson to announce her resignation from the bench, although her attorneys had advised she would likely prevail in federal court. Her resignation was effective the first week of May.

Although the legal fight is essentially over, attorney Marc Cook, who declined to comment for this news report, wrote a blistering, point-by-point response to Deyhle’s letter to Sisolak. He accused the commission of using a different set of rules for female judges, and also of leaking confidential documents. Cook made similar allegations in the March 9, 2021 interview with the I-Team.

“If you take a look at the complaint in this action, they’ve completely made things up. It’s contrived, it’s vindictive, they’ve written their documents, as though they’re press releases in an effort to avoid the fact that they’re not supposed to talk about these things. Through the stages that they’ve instead released these statements, that are essentially press releases, and by the way, false ones, to try and suppress her and punish her for speaking,” Cook said.

8newsnow.com · by 8NewsNow staff

Oklahoma Attorneys describe unwanted sexual advances from Oklahoma County judge oklahoman.com https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2021/05/17/oklahoma-county-district-judge-accused-sexual- misconduct-osbi/5128964001/

Two female attorneys have told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation they initially kept quiet about a judge's sexual advances because they feared for their careers.

Both have now come forward to accuse former Oklahoma County District Judge Tim Henderson of repeated instances of sexual misconduct.

The OSBI began looking into accusations against the married judge March 31 at the request of District Attorney David Prater.

One OSBI special agent described the investigation as being related to the offenses of sexual battery, second-degree rape and violation of the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act.

The OSBI special agent, Marc Collins, summarized in a search warrant request what the two accusers said during interviews in April.

Both attorneys described Henderson as a mentor.

Henderson was suspended March 26 from his judicial duties because of the allegations. He told The Oklahoman that day he was resigning "for the best interest of the county and my family."

He submitted his formal resignation letter in April.

"Consensual sex among colleagues is not against the law," his defense attorney, Tracy Schumacher, said Monday.

Attorneys describe judge's sexual advances The first attorney told the OSBI that Henderson first touched her, on the bottom, in 2016 in the courtroom.

"She was shocked and left. She was shaken. She convinced herself it must have been a mistake," the OSBI agent reported in a search warrant affidavit.

The next week, Henderson called her to his office, shut the door, turned her around, kissed her and put her hand on his penis over his clothes, the agent reported.

"He told her he'd wanted to do that for a while," the agent reported. "She left, feeling terrified about what he did, the power he had in the courtroom and legal community. She had been a lawyer only one year and she thought her career would be over."

The attorney described other more physical encounters with the judge over two years, both in his office and at other locations "he instructed her to go to," the agent reported. She said the judge would sometimes strip down in his office to his underwear.

"She did not want to engage in anything Henderson did, but the longer the touching went on, the more trapped she felt — like it was too late to get out of it," the agent reported. "He also frequently mentioned he always had a gun with him — in his office, in the courtroom, and outside the courthouse."

The second attorney said the judge began hugging her last year, months after she was assigned to his courtroom, according to the affidavit. She said he squeezed her buttocks during one hug in February 2020 in his office.

"She left and got in the elevator, tearing up. She was shocked and didn't know what to do. She didn't feel like she could tell anyone because of who he was," the agent reported.

She kept quiet even as the touching progressed, the agent reported.

"She did not initiate anything and did not want him to do that. She kept thinking she could handle it and no one needed to know. She did not want rumors going around about her and for her career to be ruined," the agent reported.

OSBI search warrants filed in April The OSBI in April requested a number of searches as part of the investigation. The request for a search of Henderson's personal emails was made public Monday.

He used his personal emails to tell the second accuser to come to his office, to meet him outside the courthouse and to ask for naked pictures of her, the agent reported.

Henderson's attorney said she hopes that the OSBI will present to prosecutors not only his emails but also the women's emails to him "asking him to do various sexual things."

Prater asked the OSBI to investigate after two of his prosecutors and a female defense attorney accused the judge of sexual misconduct.

Since then, a female sheriff's deputy also has spoken to the OSBI about Henderson.

Henderson presided over major local trials Henderson, 62, is a former Edmond police officer, prosecutor and defense attorney. He became a district judge in Oklahoma County in July 2012 and was widely respected.

He presided during his judicial career over some of the state's most highly publicized criminal trials.

In 2015, he oversaw the jury trial for a fired Oklahoma City police officer who was found guilty of sexually assaulting women while on duty and off. The former officer, Daniel Holtzclaw, is serving a 263- year prison sentence for crimes involving eight victims.

He also had been the presiding judge for the state's multicounty grand jury.

Under state law, a state employee can be convicted of rape even for consensual encounters if he "exercises authority over the victim."

South Carolina SC judges remain on the bench for years despite alleged crimes, ethical lapses postandcourier.com By Joseph Cranney and Avery G. Wilks [email protected], [email protected] https://www.postandcourier.com/uncovered/sc-judges-remain-on-the-bench-for-years-despite-alleged- crimes-ethical-lapses/article_37c2d3ea-d291-11eb-99da-bfb68f030756.html

Editor’s note: This story was produced in collaboration with two Uncovered partners, The News & Reporter of Chester and The Times and Democrat of Orangeburg.

South Carolina’s secretive, slow-moving system for policing its judges allows the accused to remain on the bench for years despite serious questions about their character and impartiality, an Uncovered investigation has found.

In one case, a Chester County judge still sits as chief magistrate despite persistent complaints that her conflicts with the sheriff’s department make her position untenable. Court officials haven’t acted on a grievance detailing the concerns in the two years since it was filed.

Another judge in Orangeburg County continues to preside in municipal court despite a lengthy criminal investigation into allegations that she siphoned thousands of dollars from a sale of family property. That matter was first brought to South Carolina’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel in December 2018.

Records documenting those and other complaints, obtained by The Post and Courier, offer a rare glimpse into the kind of allegations that South Carolina allows judges to face in secret.

The Disciplinary Counsel’s office, an investigative arm of the state Supreme Court, receives more than 200 complaints against the state’s judges each year. But those investigations almost never lead to a judge being removed or even publicly reprimanded.

It’s one of myriad ways that South Carolina allows government officials to police themselves and escape public scrutiny. Through its investigative series Uncovered, The Post and Courier has partnered with local newspapers to crack the lid on the state’s broken system of ethical oversight.

It’s a state where serious allegations of illegal or improper behavior by police, teachers, mayors, county council members and other officials are kept tucked away in government offices in Columbia, or shielded from the public entirely.

Some SC public officials got caught doing the wrong thing – with little or no consequences But, as The Post and Courier first revealed in a joint 2019 investigation with ProPublica, few systems are as cloaked in secrecy as the one that shrouds the state’s judges.

Bound by confidentiality protections that far exceed what South Carolina offers to other officials, the disciplinary agency shares its work with no one. Officials cannot even confirm the existence of investigations.

Statistics show the agency dismisses nearly two-thirds of the complaints it receives each year. In other instances, disciplinary officials forward their findings to a judicial conduct panel. But many cases end

26 there, too. In the last five years, just seven judges have been publicly disciplined, despite more than 1,400 complaints, records show.

And it’s nearly impossible to tell how officials come to their decisions: The disciplinary agency shields access to its investigative files.

A spokeswoman would not even tell a reporter how many full-time employees work for the agency. The agency also declined to make its top official, John Nichols, available for an interview.

Left in the dark are the public, the people who file complaints and even politicians who are responsible for appointing judges.

That has contributed to a vacuum of accountability, particularly around magistrates. The state’s busiest judges, they handle some 800,000 low-level criminal and civil cases a year. Yet they are not required to be attorneys, a profession steeped in legal and ethical training.

About three-quarters of magistrates lack a law license. And unlike any other state in the country, South Carolina allows state senators to hand pick magistrates to preside in their own districts without input from other lawmakers.

These SC judges can have less training than barbers but still decide thousands of cases each year Chester County Magistrate Angel Underwood, for example, faced a yearlong suspension as officials found she failed to disqualify herself in cases brought by her husband, the county sheriff. Yet she skated through her reappointment to the bench in 2019 without having to disclose the issue to Gov. Henry McMaster or state senators.

Through her attorney, Underwood declined to answer questions for this article.

As a municipal judge, Chasity Avinger is appointed by local officials in Orangeburg, Santee and Holly Hill. Her handling of thousands of dollars in proceeds in a real estate matter drew a two-year probe by the State Law Enforcement Division and a case before the disciplinary agency that is still pending.

Avinger told The Post and Courier the dispute over family money had nothing to do with her role as a judge. She denied doing anything illegal.

But the mayors of the three towns where she presides had no idea about the investigations into her conduct. Each first learned of the issue when contacted by The Post and Courier in June.

“I know absolutely nothing about what you’re talking about,” Holly Hill Mayor William Johnson said. “Whoever did this oversight didn’t think enough to call the mayor who she works for.”

Debts unpaid When someone decides to file a complaint against a judge, the disciplinary agency warns them: The process will take time, and investigators don’t always stay in contact as the probe runs its course.

It’s not surprising that some cases drag on for years, said Greg Adams, a professor emeritus with the University of South Carolina School of Law who specializes in legal ethics.

Some of the cases are exceedingly complex and labor intensive, Adams said. Still, he added, “Does the system work as expeditiously as it ought to? The answer is no.”

Consider the 2018 complaint filed against Avinger, a licensed attorney since 2011.

Avinger’s brother-in-law, Michael Bloom, accused her of stealing thousands of dollars in real estate funds. He sent the complaint to the Disciplinary Counsel’s office, which polices lawyers in addition to judges.

Bloom also shared the complaint with law enforcement, and SLED opened a probe.

The family had obtained ownership of five properties from Bloom’s father-in-law, but learned they owed thousands in back taxes. To clear those debts, they sold one of the properties for roughly $5,600.

The proceeds would have covered nearly all the family’s back taxes in 2018. Avinger would later acknowledge that, as the lawyer in the family, she agreed to handle the payments.

But when the $5,600 arrived, Avinger instead deposited the money into her and her husband’s bank account. The family’s debts went unpaid.

Bloom, 49, and his wife, Danni Bloom, 48, were relying on Avinger.

The family, including Avinger’s husband, had struck a deal with a real estate agent to list three of the remaining inherited properties for sale for $50,000, a contract shows.

The Blooms planned to put their share of the proceeds into an account for their 23-year-old son, who lives with severe autism, the couple said in an interview.

“He’s going to need 24-hour care for the rest of his life,” Danni Bloom said. “We were busy getting our estate planning in order to ensure that after we have passed on that he will be taken care of.”

Meanwhile, Avinger had begun missing payments on a property she bought in 2017 for her law office, records show. And she owed thousands of dollars to her sister through a separate private loan. A judge would eventually hand down a $36,250 judgment against Avinger.

She later told The Post and Courier she ran into trouble after incurring costs for her family’s health care. Still, she had assured the family she would pay off their back taxes with the $5,600 from the initial sale.

Later, she made the same promise to SLED. “I understand I’m responsible for those taxes,” Avinger told agents in June 2019. “I understand moving forward those taxes have to be paid and that I have to pay them.”

But then the end of 2019 came and went, and Avinger still hadn’t made the payments. Agents attempted to question Avinger again, but she didn’t return their messages, the investigative records show. In her response to The Post and Courier, Avinger insisted she answered all the agents’ questions and cooperated with the investigation.

The debts unpaid, the county seized the family’s three properties and sold them at tax sales. The $50,000 listing, and the Blooms’ hopes to put that money away for their son, went up in smoke.

‘No recourse’ After Avinger failed to pay the taxes in 2019, law enforcement considered an arrest, according to SLED agents’ notes in the investigative file.

But prosecutors and law enforcement ultimately declined to bring any charges against the judge. “This matter appears to be civil in nature and would best be resolved in civil court,” Fourteenth Circuit Deputy Solicitor Sean Thornton wrote in November 2020.

Thornton told The Post and Courier the case was reviewed by prosecutors in the 14th and 1st Circuit’s joint Public Integrity Unit, and that the decision not to prosecute was unanimous. The Blooms have not sued in civil court.

In response to emailed questions from The Post and Courier, Avinger denied doing anything improper. She said she deposited the money into a bank account she shared with her husband because a portion of the money belonged to him. She did not explain why she declined to pay the property taxes.

The Blooms have one property left from their inheritance. With help from two outside partners, they are now trying to sell that land to collect some money to help care for their son.

Inside SC’s secretive process for disciplining judges As they prepare for that sale, the Blooms are also still waiting for a ruling from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

After receiving the couple’s complaint in December 2018, disciplinary officials opted to wait for SLED’s investigation to conclude before proceeding with their own probe, notes from a SLED agent indicate.

Ginny Jones, the disciplinary agency’s spokeswoman, would not explain whether that decision falls in line with the agency’s policies. But Michael Virzi, a former disciplinary investigator, told The Post and Courier that the agency commonly waits for criminal investigations to run their course in order to avoid duplicating work.

First Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe, whose office worked on the Avinger case with the 14th circuit, said law enforcement’s decision to decline prosecution should have little to no bearing on the disciplinary agency’s investigation of Avinger’s conduct.

First contacted on June 22, Jones said Nichols, the disciplinary agency’s top official, was unavailable for an interview. She requested questions be sent in writing, then declined to address several key issues.

All the Bloom family knows is that their complaint, two and a half years later, is still pending.

“It’s like we have no recourse,” Danni Bloom said. “There’s nothing that the little man can do to stand up to attorneys and judges.”

Questionable actions

Closer to the disciplinary offices in Columbia, Chester County Magistrate Angel Underwood has held on to her job as one of the county’s five magistrates despite a string of controversies.

First, the Supreme Court suspended her for a year as disciplinary investigators discovered she had failed to disqualify herself from more than 100 cases brought by her husband’s department.

Then, the Chester News & Reporter revealed that Underwood successfully petitioned then-County Supervisor Shane Stuart to pay her $39,000 for the time she missed. The lump sum payment was legally questionable, since the Supreme Court had already advised the county it didn’t owe Underwood the money. And it wasn’t approved by the county council, whose members later asked the state Attorney General’s Office to investigate the payment.

Stuart has since been indicted on separate allegations that he sold methamphetamine out of his county vehicle, among other charges.

This SC judge is married to the sheriff. Ethical complaints have piled up. In 2019, The Post and Courier and ProPublica reported that Underwood flew first class on the public’s dime to a conference in Reno, Nev., on trips arranged by her husband, the former sheriff. Federal prosecutors eventually charged Alex Underwood, alleging he abused his power and skimmed public money to finance the trips.

Whether disciplinary officials have asked Angel Underwood to explain her actions or her use of public money is anybody’s guess. The agency declined to answer questions about the case.

Angel Underwood was never a defendant in the federal case, though her name came up repeatedly in her husband’s trial. Alex Underwood was convicted on seven corruption and abuse charges. He awaits sentencing.

More complaints Angel Underwood’s ties to her husband’s department led to a 2019 complaint from one of her colleagues, former Chester County Magistrate Barbara Cameron.

In that complaint, obtained by The Post and Courier, Cameron alleged Angel Underwood remained “constantly involved” in the operations of the sheriff’s department while her husband ran it. The judge huddled behind closed doors with top deputies and helped forward crime tips for deputies to follow up on, Cameron wrote in the complaint.

Angel Underwood even presided over a drunken-driving case brought by her husband’s office, then forged Cameron’s name on a court document to cover it up, Cameron alleged.

“The appearance of impartiality and fairness between the departments was laughable,” Cameron wrote in the complaint, which disciplinary officials have yet to resolve. Angel Underwood also secretly helped deputies draft a complaint against two of her colleagues on the bench, The Post and Courier and ProPublica reported at the time.

SC sheriff promised reforms, then abused his power for years In the interim, the county’s new sheriff has filed his own complaint against the judge, alleging Angel Underwood has a bias against the department since her husband’s 2019 ouster.

Sheriff Max Dorsey noted he defeated Alex Underwood in the 2020 election, and that five of Dorsey’s deputies testified in the former sheriff’s trial. Dorsey did not cite specific examples, but in a March 15 complaint insisted that Angel Underwood’s handling of any sheriff’s department matters has “great potential to be unfair.”

In an interview with The Post and Courier, Dorsey also questioned why magistrates under Angel Underwood’s supervision have rejected what the sheriff considered to be legitimate requests for criminal warrants.

Records from one case, obtained by the newspaper through an open-records request, show a deputy magistrate denied an arrest warrant for a man who published several Facebook posts calling for Chester police and sheriff’s deputies to be killed.

In another, a magistrate rejected a warrant request for a man who allegedly trespassed onto a woman’s property, exposed himself to her and then peed on her husband’s truck.

“I can’t think of another reason why they would be rejected,” Dorsey told the newspaper.

The disciplinary agency didn’t open an investigation into Dorsey’s complaint until June 1, about three weeks after The Post and Courier began asking questions about the issue.

Underwood’s attorney, I.S. Leevy Johnson, declined to comment on what he described as a “false complaint.”

“Our detailed response to the meritless complaint will be contained in our response that we will submit to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in a timely manner,” he said.

The Post and Courier asked the state’s top court official, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald Beatty, if he had any concerns that the matters against Angel Underwood are still pending. Through Jones, the courts spokeswoman, Beatty did not answer.

Cameron declined to discuss details, but when asked how she felt about the delay, through her lawyer she gave a one-word answer, “Disgusted.”

An ‘outlier’ system Some lawmakers have called for a more streamlined system of accountability for the state’s judges.

State Sen. Tom Davis, a Beaufort Republican, is among those leading the charge for reform. He contends the oversight of lower court judges like magistrates should fall more in line with South Carolina’s circuit judges, who handle all felony and major civil cases.

Those judges are screened in public hearings before the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. As it stands, the Disciplinary Counsel is the only one in charge of policing magistrates and municipal judges, who also handle minor criminal offenses.

That’s why it’s critical that when the disciplinary agency receives complaints about those judges, the agency takes the matters seriously and acts quickly, Davis said.

“The lack of responsiveness from (Disciplinary Counsel) or the tolerance for these things is indicative that still the magistrate system is looked at as being an outlier,” Davis said. “That’s something that has to change.”

While Angel Underwood’s complaints have sat pending, to keep her seat on the bench she has needed only the support of Chester’s lone senator, state Sen. Mike Fanning. The Great Falls Democrat has been a close ally to Angel Underwood and her husband for years, endorsing them for public office and regularly posting pictures together with the pair.

During the last round of reappointments in 2019, Fanning installed four new magistrates. The only one he kept was Angel Underwood. In an interview, Fanning summed up her performance as magistrate in one word: Outstanding.

We investigated South Carolina’s judges. Now, lawmakers want to overhaul the system. Davis’ proposed Magistrate Reform Act would do away with the practice of sole appointments, and add other layers of scrutiny to their appointments.

A separate proposal by Rep. Tommy Stringer, a Greer Republican, called for a legislative panel to investigate the Disciplinary Counsel’s office. But his request, filed in December 2019, has stalled in the state House of Representatives.

The key question for Stringer: Why does South Carolina discipline judges so rarely? Two years later, he hasn’t gotten an answer. postandcourier.com

Federal https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-2df8728cfafe4624c1e21ef44622e756

US judge apologizes for ‘partisan’ comments on Trump pardons By RYAN J. FOLEY Associated Press

June 30, 2021 04:35 PM IOWA CITY, Iowa A federal judge in Iowa admitted wrongdoing and publicly apologized for comments ridiculing former President Donald Trump for issuing a series of pardons to well-connected Republican officials.

Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt made the remarks during a phone interview with The Associated Press in December, saying: “It's not surprising a criminal like Trump pardons other criminals.” In a bit of humor, he added, "But apparently to get a pardon, one has to be either a Republican, a convicted child murderer or a turkey.”

Pratt's remarks set off a firestorm of criticism among lawyers, who said that they were inappropriate from a federal judge. They also triggered a judicial misconduct complaint against Pratt by Lavenski Smith, chief judge of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, where Pratt has long worked at the Des Moines courthouse, this week posted online a letter dated April 16 from Pratt to Smith.

Pratt said he accepted Smith's conclusion that his comments constitute “cognizable misconduct" because they veered into what could be construed as “inappropriate partisan statements.”

“I acknowledge the wrongfulness of the comments, and I regret the embarrassment they have caused to my court and the judiciary in general,” Pratt wrote. “I am truly sorry for the remarks and apologize for having made them. I also want to reaffirm my commitment to the impartial administration of justice in full compliance with the Code of Conduct for United States judges.”

That code calls for judges to act with impartiality, avoid political activity and not show partisan bias.

The court said it was posting the letter at Smith's direction. Pratt has been on the bench since his appointment by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1997. He has had a reduced caseload since 2012, when he assumed senior status.

Gabe Roth, executive director of nonpartisan judicial ethics watchdog Fix the Court, brought Pratt's remarks to the 8th Circuit's attention in February, calling them unseemly. Roth said Wednesday that he was pleased to learn of Pratt's apology.

“This was the outcome I had hoped for — remorse from Pratt and a promise not to make similarly partisan remarks so long as he serves as a federal judge,” he said.

Pratt made the remarks when reached for comment on pardons Trump granted in December to Jesse Benton and John Tate, aides for Republican Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign. Benton and Tate were convicted of concealing $73,000 in payments that went to Iowa Sen. Kent Sorenson in exchange for Sorenson’s endorsement of Paul.

The White House noted that the pardons for Tate and Benton were supported by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son. Sorenson, who testified against them, was not pardoned.

Pratt sentenced Sorenson to 15 months in prison in 2017, even though prosecutors asked for probation due to his cooperation. Pratt noted that Sorenson improperly took $133,000 in secret payments from presidential campaigns while serving as a senator. He warned that without consequences for abusing the public trust, "political corruption will slowly corrode the foundations of our democracy until it collapses under its own weight.”

In the December interview, Pratt referred to allegations that Trump had improperly enriched himself in office in violation of a constitutional clause that bans the acceptance of gifts and payments from foreign powers.

He spoke after Trump granted pardons to his former campaign aides convicted during the special counsel’s Russia inquiry, former GOP congressmen who committed crimes, and security contractors convicted of killing innocent civilians in Iraq. Trump also annually pardoned turkeys — last year two from Iowa — before Thanksgiving.