The Commission on Judicial Conduct of the State of Arizona disclosed this week that a complaint, with case no. 22-029, has been dismissed on July 21, 2022.
The complaint alleged improper legal rulings by a superior court judge in a criminal case and bias in favor of the prosecutor.
The Complaint states in pertinent part:
“. . . the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. . . on grounds of no warrant and when I asked the judge to rule on it she kept saying duly noted but not making a ruling. . .
. . . the defendant specifically asked for search warrant of phones court was held and the state had no warrant for the phones not even a[sic] arrest warrant which violates the defendant’s right to due process of law, the judges job was to make sure the state had the warrants or suppress the evidence out for it was illegally received, along with dismiss the case for warrantless arrest.”
The Complaint continues:
“. . . the judge threaten to take my right protected by the constitution to present myself in court no matter what I asked, all I want is my right to due process of law and she is stopping that from taking place. She had me in fear of my freedom.”
“judge keeps denying every motion I put in without checking any facts I challenged [sic] the grand jury indictment on grounds that the detective in this case lied under oath to a grand jury I even showed facts. . .”
Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the complaint, stating among others:
“The role of the Commission on Judicial Conduct is to impartially determine whether a judicial officer has engaged in conduct that violates the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct or Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution. There must be clear and convincing evidence of such a violation in order for the Commission to take disciplinary action against a judicial officer.”
The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
“The Commission does not have jurisdiction to overturn, amend, or remand a judicial officer’s legal rulings. The Commission reviewed all relevant available information and concluded there was not clear and convincing evidence of ethical misconduct in this matter. The complaint is therefore dismissed pursuant to Commission Rules 16(b) and 23(a).”
A copy of the original filing can be found here.