The legislation would allow the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct to complete disciplinary proceedings against judges who leave office while under investigation. It would also make formal charges and associated hearing materials public once the Commission decides there is enough evidence to warrant charges following a confidential review.

The changes have backing from the Commission’s chairman Joseph Belluck and administrator Robert Tembeckjian, who argue it would align New York with 38 other states’ practices. Over 650 judges have resigned in New York since 1978 to avoid further action regarding investigations, they noted.

Belluck said making these changes would foster greater openness and accountability for how the Commission handles issues of judicial ethics and conduct, which has been a goal since the agency was formed in 1978. The bill now awaits consideration in the Assembly, with supporters hoping it will advance to the governor.

Source: Mid Hudson News 

The post Legislation aims to prevent New York judges from resigning to avoid misconduct investigations appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

In an email to the Alamance County Bar Association on December 18, 2023, Allen acknowledged that North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby had appointed District Court Judge Katie Overby as the new Chief District Court Judge for Alamance County, effective immediately. Allen has served as Chief District Judge since 2014.

The circumstances leading to Allen’s demotion appear related to his behavior at the bar association’s annual Christmas party on December 9th. Multiple sources say Allen was visibly intoxicated upon arrival and seen inappropriately touching several women on the dance floor, with one witness claiming the incident was captured on video.

After the party, at least two complaints were filed against Allen with the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission. As Chief Justice Newby has the authority to remove judges from the bench if misconduct is found, speculation is rising that Allen’s tenure as a judge could be in jeopardy.

For now, Allen remains on the District Court bench but has been replaced as Chief by Judge Overby in the wake of the allegations from the bar party earlier this month. This brings an end to Allen’s tenure as the Alamance County Chief District Judge.

Source: The Alamance News 

The post North Carolina Judge Brad Allen demoted from Alamance Chief Role following inappropriate conduct at Christmas Party appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Standridge’s wife has worked as an attorney for the court system for 16 years. However, a rule implemented by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) prohibits judges and their family members from working at the same courthouse, citing concerns about potential favoritism. The AOC said Standridge’s wife would need to transfer to a different court, such as in Alamogordo.

Standridge chose to resign from his position as district judge rather than ask his wife to leave her long-time job. In an interview, he stated his overriding concern was not pushing his wife out of her job just to remain a judge. This resignation leaves a vacancy in the Third Judicial District Court as it works through a significant case backlog.

The process to fill the open judge position has commenced. On January 12, 2024, the Third Judicial District Court Judicial Nominating Commission will interview four candidates to replace Standridge. These include former prosecutor Phyl Bean, Magistrate Court Judge Rebecca Duffin, District Court attorney Isabel Jerabek, and former Magistrate Judge Jeanne Quintero. The nominee will then be sent to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham to appoint a new district judge.

Source: The Las Cruces Bulletin

The post Mark Standridge resigns as judge for New Mexico’s Third Judicial District Court due to nepotism policy concerns appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Judge Coyle was first elected to the Common Pleas Court in 2013 and was seeking her second 10-year term. She was one of 11 Common Pleas Court judges who were up for “retention elections” this year, where judges run unopposed to keep their seats.

However, Judge Coyle was the only one of the 11 judges who was rated “not recommended” for retention by the Philadelphia Bar Association due to a complaint filed against her in February by the Defender Association of Philadelphia.

The complaint accuses Judge Coyle of biased and improper handling of a criminal case. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Judge Coyle threatened both the prosecutor and defense attorney with contempt of court charges, attempted to coerce the public defender into withdrawing from the case, and improperly offered the defendant leniency if he dropped his request for the judge to recuse herself due to perceived bias.

The complaint centers around Judge Coyle’s sentencing of Johnny Colon, which was detailed in a 2019 The Philadelphia Inquirer investigation. Judge Coyle had sentenced Colon to 5.5 to 14 years in prison as a probation violation, but the Pennsylvania Superior Court overturned the punishment, finding Colon’s constitutional rights had been violated. The Superior Court also expressed concerns about Judge Coyle’s possible biases in the case.

Judge Coyle’s alleged actions in the Colon case are not isolated incidents. The Superior Court has criticized her apparent bias or abuse of discretion in at least five previous opinions dating back to 2018. However, despite this ongoing pattern of criticism and the recent judicial conduct complaint, Philadelphia voters chose to retain Judge Coyle for another term. It remains to be seen whether the complaint against her will result in any disciplinary action going forward.

Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer

The post Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Anne Marie Coyle retains seat despite judicial conduct complaint appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The case involves an 18-year-old defendant, Drew Clinton, who was accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl, Cameron Vaughan, at a graduation party in the summer of 2021. Vaughan testified that she got drunk, left the party, and fell asleep on a friend’s couch, where Clinton sexually assaulted her. Clinton maintains that Vaughan gave consent and was aware of the sexual encounter.

Adrian initially found Clinton guilty and imposed a sentence, but later reversed his decision, stating that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge’s reversal has been criticized, with some accusing him of blaming everyone except Clinton for the assault.

The disciplinary complaint against Adrian also alleges that he gave false testimony to the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, denying that his reversal was an effort to thwart the law. Adrian has been temporarily reassigned to civil cases and has since narrowly won a retention election.

Vaughan, who no longer lives in Quincy, Illinois, plans to attend Adrian’s disciplinary hearing and hopes that it will bring her closure. She believes that Adrian does not deserve to be a judge.

Source: ABAJournal

The post Illinois Judge Robert K. Adrian faces disciplinary hearing for reversing sexual assault conviction appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Paul J. Cusick,” with case no. 104.

Cusick centers around five counts of violations of the Michigan Court Rules, Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. The first count alleges that Judge Cusick allowed a witness to testify falsely about their motive to cooperate and limited the scope of questioning to conceal the fact that the witness was cooperating to benefit their boyfriend, a defendant in another case. The second count alleges that Judge Cusick called the same witness to testify at a subsequent hearing and concealed both their motive to testify and the fact that they had been untruthful previously.

The third count alleges that Judge Cusick withheld evidence about the same two cooperators in two criminal cases and that he also withheld the evidence from the prosecutor who took over his cases when he left the Attorney General’s office. The fourth count alleges that Judge Cusick failed to disclose the existence of a res gestae witness and obstructed cross-examination that might have led to identifying him. The last count alleges that Judge Cusick made false or misleading statements in his answers to the Commission’s Request for Comments and 28-Day Letter.

The Disciplinary Counsel recently filed its objections to the master’s report in the case of Cusick.  The Disciplinary Counsel raised several concerns regarding the master’s findings and conclusions, arguing that the report contained factual and logical errors and ignored extensive evidence that supported the allegations of misconduct against Judge Cusick.

To advance the proceedings, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission scheduled a hearing for oral argument. The hearing will take place on Monday, January 8, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. at the Michigan Court of Appeals, Cadillac Place, 3034 W. Grand Blvd, Suite 14-300, Detroit, MI 48202.

Judge Paul J. Cusick earned a law degree from Wayne State University. The Judge’s Courtroom is located at 1441 St Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226, and can be reached at (313) 224-2461. His bio can be found on ballotpedia.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission schedules hearing for oral argument in misconduct case of Judge Paul Cusick appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Robert M. LePore,” with case no. 2023-317.

The charges cited Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1, Rule 1.1, Canon 2, Rule 2.1, 2.3(a), 2.3(b), Canon 3, rule 3.17(b), Canon 5, rule 5.1(a)(b)(1), 5.1(b)(2), Canon 7, rule 7(a)(2) which requires:

Judges to observe high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.

Judges to avoid impropriety, and the appearance of impropriety and to act, at all times, in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality

Judges from conveying the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence them.

Judges to disqualify themselves in proceedings in which their impartiality or the appearance of their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Judges to conduct their extrajudicial activities in a manner that would not demean the judicial office

Prohibits judges from participating in activities that can be reasonably anticipated to lead to frequent disqualifications.

Prohibits judges from participating in activities that would appear to reasonable, fully informed persons to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.

Judges to remain free of politics and the political process, including making speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorsing a candidate for public office.

Judges avoid lending the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

The complaint asserts that Judge LePore expressed support for law enforcement and partisan political viewpoints on his Facebook page, liked and followed various law enforcement and partisan political groups, and maintained “friendships” with attorneys and private businesses. The complaint alleges that Judge LePore’s conduct violated several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The complaint also alleges that Judge LePore impugned the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by engaging in a conflict of interest when presiding over matters involving police officers and by conveying the impression that certain individuals or organizations are in a position to influence him. The complaint requests that the Supreme Court of New Jersey take appropriate disciplinary action against Judge LePore.

Judge LePore’s courtroom is located at 416 New Jersey Ave., Pt Pleasant Beach, New Jersey 08742, and can be reached at 732-892-1118. His info can be found on martindale.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post New Jersey Municipal Court Judge Robert LePore accused of violating judicial code through Facebook activities appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of John Paul Riggs,” with case no. 136-2022.

The charges cited Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 3.1(a)(b)(c).

Riggs was appointed as a magistrate in Pleasants County in 2021 and served until October 2, 2023, when he officially resigned. He was arrested and charged on December 7, 2022, for the misdemeanor offense of Aggravated Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI), and was later released on a $1,000.00 personal recognizance bond.

According to the filing, Riggs violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in extrajudicial activities that interfered with the proper performance of his judicial duties, participating in activities that would lead to frequent disqualification of the judge, and participating in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.

The Commission found that Riggs had fully cooperated with Judicial Disciplinary Counsel in the investigation of the ethics complaint, had readily admitted his wrongdoing, had sought treatment with the West Virginia Judicial and Lawyer Assistance Program (WVJLAP), and had resigned from his position of his own free will. However, the Commission found that the violations were serious enough to warrant a public admonishment.

The Commission noted that the Code of Judicial Conduct regulates both professional and personal conduct and that a judge must be aware of the impact of their conduct on the public’s perception of the judiciary. The Commission stated that a judge must be impartial and maintain the appearance of impartiality and that any impropriety that undermines the integrity of the judiciary must be addressed.

The Disposition states:

“Therefore, it is the decision of the Judicial Investigation Commission that John Paul Riggs, former Magistrate of Pleasants County, be disciplined by this Admonishment. Accordingly, the Judicial Investigation Commission hereby publicly admonishes former Magistrate Riggs for his conduct as fully set forth in the matters asserted herein.”

Paul Riggs was a former Magistrate of Pleasants County in West Virginia. His info can be found on ballotpedia.org.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Former Pleasants County Magistrate John Paul Riggs publicly admonished by JIC of West Virginia for DUI appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

In 1988, Rose Born was tragically killed by Dennis Jerome Bartie at her doughnut shop in Lake Charles. However, it would be almost 30 years before a suspect was brought to justice for the crime. The case remained unsolved for an extended period until Bartie’s arrest in 2016. Currently, Bartie is serving a prison sentence for attempted second-degree murder, unrelated to the case in question.

Bartie’s case was assigned to Judge Michael Canaday in the 14th Judicial District Court. In 2019, as the case moved forward, Judge Canaday presided over several crucial hearings. The hearings centered around Bartie’s request for the court to declare him indigent, meaning he lacked financial means and was entitled to state-funded defense resources. As these hearings discussed defense strategy, transcripts were sealed to protect Bartie’s right to a fair trial.

However, Judge Canaday’s handling of the case came under scrutiny. He began exchanging improper text messages and emails with a staff member at the Calcasieu Parish District Attorney’s Office regarding appeals in the ongoing case. In one text, Judge Canaday indicated he would unseal transcripts from the closed indigency hearings if the DA’s office appealed. This implied they had special influence with the court.

Sure enough, the DA’s office quickly filed a motion to unseal all the transcripts, including those containing private defense discussions. On the same day and without notifying Bartie’s attorneys or allowing time to respond, Judge Canaday signed an order granting the DA’s request. This breach in protocol damaged the appearance of an unbiased judiciary.

Bartie’s defense attorneys argued Judge Canaday could no longer fairly preside over the case due to his inappropriate conduct. Both the Third Circuit and the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed, removing Canaday from the proceedings.

A formal investigation by Louisiana’s Judiciary Commission then uncovered Canaday’s misconduct. This included not only the texts and improper order but also releasing sealed documents without a hearing. The Louisiana Supreme Court, which has authority over disciplinary matters, agreed and issued a public censure. Judge Canaday was also ordered to pay $1,690.25 in costs.

Judge Canaday admitted to and apologized for his misconduct and stated that he will now implement safeguards like including opposing counsel in all case communications.

Source: 7KPLC

The post Louisiana Supreme Court publicly censures Judge Michael Canaday for unsealing transcripts without notifying defense in high-profile murder case appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Melissa Boyd,” with case no. B22-9116.

Judge Boyd was suspended on May 22, 2023, after admitting to having a substance abuse problem. She agreed to certain conditions to keep the suspension private, including submitting to an evaluation by the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP), a professional assessment with a TLAP-approved provider within thirty days, and completing all recommendations of the evaluation. However, Judge Boyd failed to do so and has been non-compliant with both the Order of Suspension and her treatment plan.

It all started when the Board received a complaint against Judge Boyd on November 30, 2022, alleging that she was threatening and intimidating an acquaintance and abusing alcohol. An investigative panel was authorized to investigate the matter, and Judge Boyd was notified of the investigation on December 21, 2022. She failed to respond to the notice until February 23, 2023, more than a month after the deadline.

The investigation was expanded based on additional allegations that Judge Boyd was discovered sitting outside the acquaintance’s residence at approximately 2:30 a.m., texting pictures of the property and sending text messages that accused the person of having someone in the home. Judge Boyd admitted that she sent the text messages and acknowledged that her behavior was inappropriate.

The Board notified Judge Boyd that her conduct implicated several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including violating the law, conduct calculated to bring the judiciary into public disrepute and conduct that adversely affects the administration of justice. The Board also notified Judge Boyd that her behavior was inappropriate and that she had failed to timely respond to the notice.

In a letter dated May 5, 2023, Judge Boyd acknowledged that she has a substance abuse problem and is seeking treatment to address her issues. However, she has violated a material term of the Order of Suspension by failing to submit to an evaluation as directed by TLAP and has been found non-compliant with her treatment plan.

Accordingly, the investigative panel has determined that the Order of Suspension and the May 22, 2023, letter shall be released to the public and shall serve as a public reprimand. Judge Boyd has received two public reprimands in the short time she has been a judge, and the Board cannot permanently remove her from the bench, as that authority is vested solely in the General Assembly. However, to protect the public and preserve trust and confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice, the Board is reporting Judge Boyd to the General Assembly pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 17-5-203(a)(1) for further action as that body deems appropriate.

Judge Boyd’s office is located at 201 Poplar Avenue Suite 3034 Memphis, TN 38103, She attended the University of Louisville School of Law. Her bio can be found in tncourts.gov. 

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Tennessee Criminal Court Judge Melissa Boyd publicly reprimanded for violating suspension terms appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.