Picard, an inmate at Belmont Correctional Institution, argues that his convictions in two cases dating back to 2008 and 2009 never resulted in a final, appealable order as required under Ohio law. According to the filing, the trial court issued sentencing entries across multiple documents rather than a single, unified judgment entry.

The complaint centers on restitution orders included in Picard’s sentencing. He alleges that while restitution was imposed, the sentencing entries failed to specify key details, including the amount owed and the recipient. Instead, those details were placed in separate “statement of fact restitution” documents, which Picard contends do not satisfy legal requirements that all components of a sentence be contained in one entry.

Picard points to a 2016 ruling by the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which found that the trial court had not issued a final appealable order because it failed to consolidate the sentence into a single document. The appellate court granted a writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to correct the deficiency. Although the trial court later issued a nunc pro tunc entry in 2017, Picard argues that the revision did not resolve the restitution issue.

In his filing, Picard maintains that restitution is a substantive part of a criminal sentence and must be properly included in the sentencing entry. He asserts that because the restitution details remain incomplete or improperly documented, the judgment against him still does not qualify as final under Ohio law.

The complaint further alleges that repeated attempts to raise the issue in lower courts have been dismissed on procedural grounds, including res judicata. Picard contends that such procedural bars are inapplicable where no final appealable order exists, citing Ohio Supreme Court precedent.

Picard is asking the state’s high court to either order the trial court to issue a new, legally compliant sentencing entry that includes all aspects of his sentence or, alternatively, to order his immediate release on the grounds that he has been incarcerated without a valid final judgment.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Ohio Judge Named in Mandamus Complaint Over Alleged Failure to Issue Final Appealable Sentencing Order appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The measure, known as “Missy’s Law,” was signed during a ceremony in Tampa and is named after Melissa “Missy” Mogle, a Tallahassee child who was killed in May 2025. Authorities said the girl’s stepfather, Daniel Spencer, fatally abused her while he was out on bond awaiting sentencing in an unrelated case involving an attempted meeting with a minor for sex. Spencer has since been charged with first-degree murder.

The new law requires judges to remand individuals convicted of dangerous crimes into custody immediately following a guilty verdict, prohibiting their release on bond while awaiting sentencing or further proceedings.

Before signing the bill, DeSantis sharply criticized 2nd Judicial Circuit Court Judge Tiffany Baker-Carper, who had allowed Spencer’s release pending sentencing. The governor urged lawmakers to pursue impeachment, arguing that stronger accountability measures are necessary to prevent similar incidents.

Mogle’s family attended the bill signing, which also included approval of a separate measure updating statutory language by replacing the term “child pornography” with “child sexual assault material.”

Under the Florida Constitution, the House has the authority to impeach judges with a two-thirds majority vote. Republicans currently hold a supermajority in the chamber, giving them sufficient numbers to initiate such proceedings. If a judge is impeached or resigns, the governor is responsible for appointing a replacement.

Judicial impeachments in Florida are uncommon. In 2017, the House initiated inquiries into two judges, though one resigned before a hearing, and the other was disciplined by the state Supreme Court but not impeached.

DeSantis said the legislation was driven by tragedy but expressed hope it would prevent similar cases in the future.

Source: CBS News

The post Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Seeks Impeachment of Judge Tiffany Baker-Carper After Release of Man Accused of Killing 5-Year-Old appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

In an order issued the same day, Judge Phillip J. Shepherd determined that the legislature overstepped its authority by attempting to impeach Goodman based on her judicial decisions and courtroom administration. He wrote that impeachment powers do not extend to disagreements over rulings unless criminal conduct is involved.

The impeachment effort stemmed from House Resolution 124, which adopted a petition filed by former state representative Killian Timoney. The resolution accused Goodman of judicial misconduct tied to six cases. Shepherd noted that three of those cases remain pending, while four involve disputes with the Fayette County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office.

Shepherd emphasized that complaints about a judge’s rulings fall under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Conduct Commission and the Kentucky Supreme Court, not the legislature. In his order, he warned that allowing lawmakers to remove judges over legal disagreements would undermine the balance of powers.

“The legislature has now asserted the power to remove judges and justices from office because it disagrees with their rulings,” Shepherd wrote, adding that such authority would erode constitutional checks and balances.

The ruling also referenced testimony from Fayette County Commonwealth’s Attorney Kimberly Baird, a former political opponent of Goodman, who served as the chief witness before the House Special Impeachment Committee. According to the order, Baird said she cooperated with lawmakers because she was uncertain whether the Judicial Conduct Commission would act.

Although Shepherd voided the impeachment articles, he declined to block a potential Senate trial, noting the Senate was not a party to the case. The matter is also pending before the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Source: LEX 18

The post Kentucky Judge Voids Impeachment Articles Against Julie Muth Goodman Over Lack of Impeachable Offense appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The footage captures Harris County Judge Nathan Milliron in a tense exchange with the technician, who had approached the bench to address what appeared to be an audio problem. After briefly checking the system, the worker indicated the issue had been resolved, describing it as a “false alarm.” When the technician added a lighthearted remark, calling it a “false negative,” the comment appeared to aggravate the judge.

Milliron responded sharply, insisting the issue had been real and admonishing the worker for joking about the situation. He then dismissed the technician, telling him to leave the courtroom. Shortly after the worker exited, the judge was heard expressing further frustration off camera and asking that the employee’s supervisor be located.

The video spread widely across social media platforms, accumulating millions of views and prompting criticism from viewers who questioned the judge’s conduct. Several commenters described the technician as polite and professional, while others raised concerns about the judge’s demeanor in a courtroom setting.

According to court officials, the IT worker involved is a court employee known among staff as helpful and reliable. Judges who spoke off camera to local media outlets described the technician as well-regarded within the courthouse.

Milliron has served on the bench of the 215th District Court since January 2025. As an elected official, his position limits the ability of local court administrators to impose direct disciplinary action.

In response to the incident, Civil Court Administrative Judge Rabeea Collier issued a statement acknowledging the concerns raised by the video. She emphasized the judiciary’s commitment to professionalism, respect, and maintaining public trust, noting that formal processes exist to address issues of judicial conduct.

Source: AOL

The post Texas Judge Nathan Milliron Faces Backlash for Berating IT Worker in Viral Courtroom Video appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

This action follows Piergies’ guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of obstructing official business, as reported by AbusiveDiscretion on May 14, 2025. The plea was entered in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court after allegations surfaced that Piergies misused his authority to arrange employment for his son at the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Office.

The Ohio Auditor of State’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) conducted the investigation, revealing that Piergies signed off on transactions that facilitated his son’s employment. The salary, though paid through the Clerk of Courts Office, originated from the Montgomery County Municipal Court.

As part of his plea agreement, Piergies received a 90-day suspended jail sentence, two years of community control, and a $750 fine. He was also required to complete 75 hours of community service and has resigned from his judicial position. Piergies’ indictment occurred in July 2024, which initiated formal scrutiny of his actions.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has ordered that Piergies must cease practicing law in the state and is forbidden from appearing as an attorney in any Ohio court. He is also prohibited from providing legal opinions or advice. Before entering into any employment or consulting relationship with an attorney or law firm, Piergies must ensure the firm complies with registration requirements. He is restricted from direct client contact and handling client trust funds unless specified by Gov.Bar R. V(23)(A)(1).

Piergies is also barred from associating with any law firm where he was a partner, shareholder, member, or employee during the misconduct. He must surrender his certificate of admission to practice law within 30 days of the court’s order, and his name will be removed from the roll of attorneys. Additionally, Piergies is required to reimburse any amounts awarded against him by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection within 90 days.

Within 30 days of the order, Piergies must notify all clients and co-counsel of his resignation and disqualification, advising clients to seek alternative legal services. He must deliver all client papers and property, regardless of outstanding fees, and refund any unearned fees or expenses. Opposing counsel and adverse parties in pending litigation must be notified of Piergies’ disqualification.

All notices must be sent via certified mail, and Piergies must file an affidavit with the court and disciplinary counsel demonstrating compliance. He must also maintain records of all steps taken to comply with the order and keep the clerk and disciplinary counsel informed of any address changes.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Ohio Supreme Court Accepts James Douglas Piergies’ Resignation From Practice of Law appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick said in a letter that she would not recuse herself from matters involving the Tesla CEO, but would transfer three cases to other judges. McCormick wrote that the recusal request was based on a “false premise,” disputing assertions that she supported a LinkedIn post critical of Musk.

“I am not biased against the defendants in these actions,” McCormick said, noting that she had previously dismissed a lawsuit against Musk. She added that the motion to recuse was denied, but the request to reassign the cases was granted.

The controversy stemmed from a LinkedIn post that highlighted Musk’s recent legal setback in California, where a jury found he misled Twitter shareholders ahead of his 2022 acquisition of the company, now known as X. McCormick’s account had appeared to “support” the post, prompting allegations of partiality.

In her response, McCormick said she was unaware of the interaction at the time and suggested it may not have been intentional. She stated that she either did not engage with the post or may have done so inadvertently.

McCormick also cited the impact of heightened public scrutiny in her decision to reassign the cases, writing that disproportionate media attention surrounding a judge’s involvement can undermine the administration of justice.

Among the cases reassigned is litigation concerning Musk’s 2018 Tesla compensation package, originally valued at approximately $56 billion. McCormick had previously ruled against the pay arrangement, finding it was not fairly negotiated.

The cases will now proceed under different judges within the Delaware Chancery Court.

Source: The Hill

The post Delaware Judge Kathaleen McCormick Reassigns Elon Musk Cases After Rejecting Bias Claims Over LinkedIn Post appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

According to documents obtained by Shaw Local News Network, La Salle County State’s Attorney Joe Navarro submitted the complaint to the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board on behalf of staff in his office. The circuit encompasses La Salle, Bureau, and Grundy counties. The inquiry board, which investigates judicial misconduct, typically does not comment on pending cases and releases information only upon reaching a finding.

The complaint targets Chief Judge H. Chris Ryan Jr., who declined to comment when given the opportunity. Navarro also declined to provide further public statements, indicating he would defer comment until the inquiry board completes its review.

The allegations became public after La Salle County Board member Alexandria “Ali” Braboy obtained related documents through a Freedom of Information Act request and shared a partially redacted version with Shaw Local. In a statement, Braboy said the information should be made available to the public and called for greater transparency in how judicial complaints are handled. She also urged county leadership to clarify how employees are being supported.

Included in the complaint is an eight-page, undated letter Navarro addressed to Ryan, outlining what he described as a longstanding pattern of abusive and hostile conduct. Navarro wrote that he had personally witnessed the judge’s behavior over decades and alleged that staff members had been subjected to name-calling, belittlement, and intimidation. Some employees, he said, sought medical treatment, left court proceedings in distress, or requested reassignment to avoid appearing in Ryan’s courtroom.

Navarro stated that he had sought guidance from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, which advised him that he was not only permitted but required to report the conduct. As a potential remedy, Navarro suggested that Ryan be reassigned from the felony division at the La Salle County criminal justice center to another division within the circuit.

The complaint appears to have been prompted in part by a series of documented incidents, including recent in-court remarks. One Feb. 2, 2026, email included in the materials alleges that Ryan referred to two assistant state’s attorneys as “morons” while discussing jail detainees awaiting court appearances.

In another account, a prosecuting attorney described being subjected to belittling comments in open court and in front of a jury, stating the experience made it difficult to continue the trial effectively due to fear of further ridicule.

The Judicial Inquiry Board has not announced whether it will pursue formal charges or disciplinary action as the review remains ongoing.

Source: Shaw Local News Network

The post La Salle County Judge H. Chris Ryan Jr. Accused of Bullying and Verbal Harassment by Prosecutors appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Judge Mark Hanni, who currently serves on the 7th District Court of Appeals, is running for a different seat on the same court as he approaches the age limit for reelection to his current position. As part of his campaign across Mahoning and Columbiana counties, signs have appeared displaying his name alongside the phrases “Jesus Is My Savior. Trump Is My President.”

In addition to the signage, Hanni has openly described himself in campaign materials as “pro-Trump” and a “Trump Republican,” while also sharing his views on issues such as abortion, the Second Amendment, police funding, fracking, and parental rights in education.

Ohio’s Code of Judicial Conduct governs the political activity of judges and judicial candidates. Section 4.1 prohibits endorsements of political candidates, though legal experts note that such restrictions apply primarily during active candidacies. Jonathan Entin, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said that because former President Donald Trump is not currently a candidate, expressions of support for him do not violate the rule.

Hanni addressed concerns about his statements in an interview, emphasizing that he would continue to follow the law if elected. He acknowledged that legal interpretation can vary but maintained that personal beliefs do not override judicial duty. He also stated that he prays before taking the bench and believes voters have a right to know a candidate’s personal values.

The judicial conduct code further bars candidates from making pledges or commitments that could compromise impartial decision-making. However, Entin explained that expressing general political or ideological views does not necessarily meet that threshold. He cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming that judicial candidates retain First Amendment rights, including the ability to share their perspectives.

At the same time, Entin noted ongoing concerns within the judiciary about the increasingly political nature of judicial elections. Some legal observers argue that the current system allows campaigns to resemble partisan contests, potentially affecting public perception of judicial neutrality.

Absent structural changes to how judges are selected, Entin said the responsibility ultimately lies with voters to determine whether such campaign messaging is appropriate. Hanni echoed that view, stating that voters who disagree with his approach are free to support another candidate.

Source: WFMJ

The post Ohio Judge Mark Hanni Under Fire for Campaign Signs Referencing Trump and Religion appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The committee found no ethical bar to such service, even if one of the cemeteries is within the court’s jurisdiction, provided the cemeteries are not regularly engaged in adversarial litigation. Opinion 25-150 clarifies the application of judicial ethics rules to this specific scenario.

The inquiry stemmed from a judge who sought to continue serving on the boards of two not-for-profit cemetery organizations after assuming full-time judicial office. One cemetery is located outside the court’s jurisdiction and rarely involved in litigation. The other is within the court’s jurisdiction but has only occasionally been named in personal injury or disinterment proceedings as a stakeholder.

The Committee referenced several rules and prior opinions in its analysis, including provisions of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct that address conflicts of interest and extra-judicial activities. A judge must avoid impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary. While judges can generally serve as officers, directors, or trustees of not-for-profit organizations, this is prohibited if the entity is likely to be engaged in proceedings that would come before the judge or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.

The opinion notes that a judge must disqualify themselves from cases where they are an officer, director, or trustee of a party, or if they have an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding. The Committee concluded that neither cemetery was “engaged regularly” in adversarial proceedings. It also determined that the local cemetery was not “likely” to be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge.

Regarding compensation, the Committee determined that the judge could accept the same standard compensation as other board members. This is permissible as long as the compensation does not exceed what a non-judge would receive for the same activity and does not create an appearance of improper influence. The Committee noted that because a judge serving as a director of a cemetery would be disqualified in any matters involving the cemetery, the source of payments would not create such an appearance.

The post Judge Can Serve on Cemetery Board and Receive Compensation, NY Ethics Committee Says appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

According to the Commission, Pitts-Davis refused to perform a scheduled courthouse wedding for a same-sex couple on Saturday, Nov. 16, 2024, while she was assigned to preside over marriage ceremonies on a rotating basis. Although another judge ultimately conducted the ceremony, the Commission determined that her actions created an appearance of bias and discrimination.

The Commission concluded that censure, rather than removal from office, was the appropriate sanction based on the specific circumstances surrounding the incident. It cited several mitigating factors, including that Pitts-Davis had previously officiated same-sex marriages and was undergoing what she described as a “profound re-evaluation” of her religious beliefs at the time.

The judge was also dealing with personal distress, having learned the day before that her brother was terminally ill. He died two days later. The Commission noted that Pitts-Davis sought ethical guidance upon learning that one of the scheduled ceremonies involved a same-sex couple, but was unable to obtain a timely advisory opinion.

Pitts-Davis asked court staff to postpone the same-sex ceremony, and if necessary, both scheduled weddings. While neither ceremony was ultimately delayed, she was reportedly informed that the same-sex marriage had been rescheduled and said she was unaware the couple was present when she officiated another marriage that day.

In its findings, the Commission emphasized that judges who choose to perform marriages must do so without discrimination or the appearance of prejudice. It stated that her refusal “severely undermined public confidence” in her ability to act impartially.

Pitts-Davis acknowledged her conduct was improper, expressed remorse, and agreed to the censure. She also committed to performing same-sex marriage ceremonies in the future when on duty if no other judge is available, recognizing that judicial responsibilities must take precedence over personal beliefs.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Syracuse Judge K. Felicia Pitts-Davis Faces Censure for Declining to Officiate Same-Sex Wedding appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.