Judicial Discipline Decision Summaries May-June 2015 Wilson, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct February 6, 2015) (http://www.azcourts.gov/portals/137/reports/2014/14-331.pdf) The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for presiding over a criminal damage trial even though he was a leasing agent for the company that managed the property that had been damaged and had spoken with the resident of the property about the broken window. The judge presided over a criminal damage trial in which Pedro Espinoza was charged with breaking a window at a residence occupied by Cheryl Benson. After finding Espinoza guilty, the judge asked Benson the cost to repair the window. She responded, “I don’t know. You haven’t told me yet.” The judge then told her he would get that to her as he did have it. The judge admitted that he was a leasing agent for the company that managed the property in question and that he had had a prior conversation with Benson, who advised him when the window was broken. He claimed to have failed to make the connection until the testimony in court. The Commission noted that, even after he learned of his connection to the case, the judge failed to disqualify himself, vacate the proceedings and reset them before a judge pro- tem, instead, ordering the defendant to pay $120 in restitution to the property management company. Guzman, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct March 26, 2015) (http://www.azcourts.gov/portals/137/reports/2014/14-398.pdf) The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct reprimanded a judge for delaying 3 rulings in the same DUI case past 60 days notwithstanding his periodic certification that he had no pending or undetermined cause for more than 60 days. 1 ruling was unreasonably delayed for over 3 months. Irwin, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct March 26, 2015) (http://www.azcourts.gov/portals/137/reports/2014/14-400.pdf) The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct reprimanded a judge for ex parte communications that improperly inserted him into the appeal of a case. During an appeal in a post-conviction relief proceeding in a case in which the judge had imposed the underlying sentence, the Arizona Court of Appeals' ruling incorrectly referred to a previous attorney for the defendant as court-appointed counsel. During oral argument, the Arizona Supreme Court continued to refer to the previous attorney as court-appointed counsel, and the defendant’s current counsel (Emiley Danies, who had correctly referred to the attorney as pro bono counsel in her brief) did not correct the misunderstanding. The judge became aware of that failure. 1 In an ex parte e-mail, the judge contacted Jonathan Bass, one of the attorneys from the attorney general’s office who had appeared at the oral argument, advised him of the misstatement, and demanded his office take action to correct the mistake. When Bass advised the judge his office believed the misstatement to be immaterial and would not be filing anything concerning the misstatement, the judge sent another ex parte e-mail demanding to have a supervisor involved and chastising both sides over the misstatement. In another e-mail, the judge alleged that Danies intentionally misrepresented the facts to the Court, chastised the attorneys in the attorney general’s office for their handling of the case, and demanded to speak to Bass’s supervisor. The judge then had an ex parte communication with the supervisor. The next day, Bass notified Danies of the communications with the judge, and they jointly agreed to file a notice of clarification with the Arizona Supreme Court. Upon remand of the case to the trial level, the complainant sought and obtained the judge’s disqualification for cause due to the e-mails. Watters, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct February 6, 2015) (file:///C:/Users/cgray/Desktop/.pdf) The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct reprimanded a judge for appearing in a photograph on his law firm’s web-site in a judicial robe and advertising himself on the web-site as an active part-time judge pro tem in the Arizona court system. Bravo, Press release (Arizona Supreme Court June 26, 2015) (http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/137/Press_Releases/Bravo%20Press%20Release.pdf) Based on a stipulated resolution, the Arizona Supreme Court censured a justice of the peace for failing to disclose that he jointly owned property with a litigant in 2 protective order proceedings. In 2012, a litigant who had appeared in the judge’s court on 2 cases acquired a mining claim in his name and the judge’s name. Although he initially placed the judge’s name on the claim without the judge’s knowledge, he later disclosed this interest to the judge. In 2012 and 2013, this litigant appeared before the judge as a plaintiff in a separate protective order proceedings, but the judge did not disclose his relationship or joint property ownership with the litigant to the other party. Letter of Reprimand (Keaton) (Arkansas Commission on Judicial Discipline and Disability May 15, 2015) (http://www.arkansas.gov/jddc/pdf/2015/keatonLetter.pdf) The Arkansas Commission on Judicial Discipline and Disability publicly reprimanded a judge for a 17-month delay in entering a decision in a divorce case following the final hearing despite 2 inquiries from one of the attorneys. This is the 4th time the judge has been publicly sanctioned for delay; he was admonished in 1998 for a 2-year delay in 1 case; reprimanded in 2008 for delays in several cases; and censured in 2012 for delays in several cases. After the 2012 censure, the judge had implemented a case management system that he self- 2 administered. He took the case file in the divorce case home in May 2012; while in his home office, the file was moved and “fell into an ‘out of sight out of mind’ category which caused him to forget to have it logged into his case management documentation in his court office.” Since the complaint about this delay has been filed, the judge’s docket has been re-structured, and he no longer is assigned domestic relations or probate cases. The Commission also ordered the judge to review his docket every quarter with his trial court assistant and maintain a written documentation of when the review occurred, to “maintain constant and continuous communication with” his administration judge about strategies for case management, and to maintain organization of his cases and avoid delayed rulings. The Commission will monitor the judge’s compliance with the conditions. Public Admonishment of Fielder (California Commission on Judicial Performance May 14, 2015) (http://cjp.ca.gov/res/docs/public_admon/Fielder_Pub_Admon_05-14-15.pdf) The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for (1) being aggressive and heavy-handed when interacting with a member of court administration regarding the re-assignment of another judge’s courtroom clerk and (2) summoning an attorney to his chambers and suggesting that a declaration should not be filed due to his concerns about the court’s reputation and the other judge’s family. (1) On April 3, 2013, Judge Fielder and Judge Cory Woodward met with the deputy chief court executive officer for court operations regarding court administration’s decision to re- assign Judge Woodward’s courtroom clerk. During the meeting, Judge Fielder accused court administration of violating court protocol by moving a clerk from a judge’s courtroom and stated that court administration should not be “messing around” with judges’ courtrooms. He stated words to the effect that, before they would allow court administration to move courtroom clerks around, the judges “would get together and fire” the court executive officer. Judge Fielder also stated that Judge Woodward’s clerk “was getting the shaft,” that there was “no significant or valid reason” to move the clerk, that the complaint about her “should be something more significant,” and that, if the complaint was coming from another clerk, that clerk was the one who should be moved. Judge Fielder conceded “that, during the meeting, he improperly displayed considerable irritation toward the court administrator and engaged in a discussion that was too aggressive, too heavy-handed, and could have been intimidating to court administration.” He acknowledged that he was unnecessarily forceful in his statements, that his conduct was inappropriate, that the statement about firing the administrator’s supervisor was “out of line,” and that court administration is ultimately responsible for decisions about staffing. (2) On July 1, 2013, Michael Kilpatrick, filed a motion for a new trial after Judge Woodward ruled against his client. On July 5, Kilpatrick’s associate, Andrew Smith, presented to Judge Fielder an ex parte application for a temporary stay of enforcement of Judge Woodward’s order pending the hearing on the motion for a new trial, which Judge Fielder, as supervising judge, needed to approve before the clerk would file it and set it for hearing. The application included a statement of disqualification of Judge Woodward for cause, accompanied by a declaration signed by Kilpatrick that included references to recent “allegations of perhaps substantial inappropriate behavior and/or misconduct between Judge 3 Woodward and his staff,” resulting in “tremendous pressure” on Judge Woodward and his family. The declaration also contained a statement that Judge Woodward was to have been in the Metropolitan District hearing family matters for 2013 and 2014, but that “he has now been quietly swept aside and returned to the East Kern Branch.” After Judge Fielder reviewed the ex parte application and declaration, he called Smith into his chambers and told him, among other things, that Kilpatrick’s declaration about Judge Woodward and the court should be toned down before it was filed.