Nelson, 52, of Idaho Falls, has been charged by Idaho Falls city prosecuting attorney Zachary H. Jones. The case is being handled in Idaho’s 7th Judicial District Court. According to court records, the confrontation occurred in a parking lot on Memorial Drive. Nelson and another Idaho Falls resident reportedly had a verbal disagreement over a parking spot that escalated to a physical level.

Prosecutor Jones confirmed the charges against Nelson but declined to provide further details, stating he wants to ensure a thorough and unbiased process given the potential high-profile nature of the case.

Nelson’s attorney, Curtis R. Smith, issued a statement asserting Nelson’s presumption of innocence and his commitment to resolving the personal charges through the judicial system. Smith stressed that the incident, involving alleged damage to sunglasses, is unrelated to Nelson’s judicial duties.

Records indicate Nelson was formally charged on April 22 and entered pleas of not guilty to both charges on May 13. A pretrial conference hearing is scheduled for June 18 before 7th District Magistrate Judge John C. Dewey at the Bonneville County Courthouse. The purpose of this hearing is to facilitate the exchange of evidence, explore plea agreement possibilities, and manage the court’s schedule to either settle the case or prepare for a potential trial.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, has jurisdiction over Idaho and eight other western states. Nelson also maintains an office in Idaho Falls.

The alleged victim, whose identity is being withheld by the Idaho State Journal, stated that the incident began just after he had parked his vehicle next to Nelson’s blue pickup truck. He described Nelson’s truck as being angled in its parking space, effectively blocking multiple spots. As the alleged victim was exiting his vehicle, Nelson started his truck to depart. The alleged victim then made comments about Nelson’s parking.

Video footage obtained by the Idaho State Journal appears to show Nelson exiting his truck and approaching the alleged victim. Nelson is heard on the video asserting he had only been parked for two minutes. Within about 12 seconds of getting out of his truck, Nelson allegedly swiped at the alleged victim, ultimately removing his glasses and throwing them approximately 50 feet away. The alleged victim reported that Nelson’s finger caught his glasses as he removed them.

The video also shows Nelson briefly turning away before returning to the alleged victim. Another verbal exchange occurred, during which Nelson appeared to attempt to take the alleged victim’s phone. Nelson is heard on the video using offensive language and calling the alleged victim “crazy.” As the alleged victim continued to walk toward his glasses, Nelson reportedly ran past him, stopped at the location of the glasses on the asphalt, and stomped on them.

The alleged victim reported the incident to the Idaho Falls Police Department the following day, April 3. An affidavit filed in court states that the alleged victim told police Nelson had challenged him to a fight. The officer investigating the report also spoke with Nelson, who reportedly admitted to knocking the glasses from the alleged victim’s head and stomping on them, while denying any physical contact with the man himself.

Nelson did not respond to a request for comment made to his Idaho Falls office. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has stated it is aware of the situation and is awaiting further information.

Nelson, who was nominated by President Donald Trump, has served as a 9th Circuit judge since 2018.

If convicted of both misdemeanor charges, Nelson faces a potential sentence of up to 18 months in county jail and a fine of up to $2,000.

Source: Idaho State Journal

The post 9th Circuit Judge Ryan Douglas Nelson Faces Battery and Malicious Injury to Property Charges After Idaho Falls Parking Lot Altercation appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP), the state body responsible for overseeing judicial conduct, has investigated complaints against Draper and formally charged him with misconduct in office. The commission’s members, who are the ultimate decision-makers in disciplinary matters, will not issue a determination on any potential sanctions until after the upcoming primary election.

Draper, 84, was initially appointed to the bench in 2012 by former Governor Jerry Brown. Superior Court judges in California are required to run for reelection after their initial appointment. Draper is seeking his third full term and appears on the ballot for all Los Angeles County voters under Office No. 2, facing opposition from deputy district attorney Tal Valbuena.

The CJP has brought seven counts of violating judicial ethics against Draper. These proceedings are not criminal or civil in nature, but the commission employs similar terminology. The CJP itself is composed of 11 members, including judges, lawyers, and other individuals appointed by the governor, the state Legislature, and the California Supreme Court.

Currently, Draper is assigned to “chambers work only.” Both Draper and his attorney informed LAist that his court-issued email account is restricted, and he does not have a computer or staff in his chambers. He has not presided over any cases since returning in June 2023 from an involuntary leave, which, according to commission records, was related to the alleged ethics violations.

Among the specific allegations detailed by the CJP are:

• Draper is accused of sending nude photographs from a confidential child abuse case to colleagues via a court email address.
• He is also alleged to have made inappropriate comments about race, including using the term “coal black,” and referred to women in the courthouse as “attractive” and “cute.”

These charges stem from alleged misconduct in office, failure to perform duties, and actions that could harm the reputation of the judicial office. Draper has denied some of the claims and offered explanations for others in an interview with LAist.

Initially, the commission suggested his behavior might be linked to an unnamed disability that interferes with his duties, a claim that could lead to a judge’s removal from the bench if proven. However, LAist confirmed this specific claim has since been withdrawn.

Draper has stated he is managing personal health issues, including Parkinson’s disease, a detached retina, and a rotator cuff injury, and is also grieving the recent death of his son. The seven counts against him relate to alleged violations occurring in 2022 and 2023.

Regarding comments on race, records indicate Draper admitted to making statements deemed “irrelevant” and “inappropriate” by other judges in a 2023 sexual harassment case he presided over. During a hearing where the defense sought a new trial after a jury awarded $10 million, Draper reportedly discussed his personal views on interracial mixing and Black history, stating his intention was to encourage a settlement.

Transcripts suggest he used terms like “coal black” and “light brown” to describe skin tones, which he defended as similar to describing clothing colors. The commission, however, characterized these comments as reflecting “bias, prejudice, or harassment.” Draper’s written response to the charges asserted the dialogue was taken out of context, and he indicated he would avoid using the word “black” in the future.

Concerning workplace conduct, Draper is accused of making comments to an all-women legal team about male attorneys’ past attitudes towards female secretaries. He stated this was meant to highlight how such behavior is no longer acceptable. His comments, along with other issues, contributed to the California Court of Appeal overturning a verdict and ordering a new trial in that case.

He is also alleged to have inappropriately touched a lawyer’s hair during proceedings, which he denies. Further allegations involve multiple comments about women in the courthouse in 2022 and 2023, which Draper disputes, but the commission deems violations of judicial ethics. He stated his intention was to make people feel good about themselves, not to make advances.

Draper is also charged with failing to adhere to courthouse leadership directives. While on involuntary leave in March 2023, he reportedly continued administrative work on cases, despite directives to stay away from courthouse resources. He claims his supervisors were aware of his continued work. The commission also cited problematic emails, including sending nude photos from a confidential child abuse case to unauthorized recipients. Additionally, he emailed photos of himself “from behind without clothes” to colleagues, which he testified was to show proof of an injury.

A panel of independent “special masters” recently conducted a six-day hearing on these charges, and their report is expected soon. The commission members will then review the findings and decide on any disciplinary action, which could range from clearing him to censure or removal from office.

Source: LAist

The post LA Superior Court Judge Robert Draper Battles Judicial Misconduct Charges While Running for Re-Election appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Friday, May 22, 2026, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States affirmed a judicial council’s order finding a federal judge guilty of misconduct. The decision stems from a complaint initially identified on September 30, 2025, by the Chief Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, based on a memorandum from the Chief District Judge.

The core of the misconduct allegations, as detailed in the memorandum, originated from a law clerk’s report. The clerk alleged that the subject judge engaged in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking law enforcement officer, including sexual activity within the judge’s chambers during business hours, audible to staff. Further accusations included a failure to mentor law clerks, displaying anger, yelling, and cursing at them, and an on-record comment about consuming “too many martinis the night before” at a District Attorney event.

The subject judge, when initially notified, denied all allegations, characterizing them as “outrageous” and “baseless,” and suggested the law clerk’s claims were retaliatory due to performance criticisms.

A special committee was appointed to investigate, conducting a thorough review that involved interviewing former law clerks, examining documents, emails, text messages, security footage, and even performing forensic testing on a couch cushion in the judge’s chambers. This investigation aimed to verify the presence of the law enforcement officer and the possibility of audible sounds from chambers.

The special committee’s report, issued on December 10, 2025, found the subject judge engaged in judicial misconduct on three fronts: the extramarital affair and sexual activity in chambers, attendance at a partisan political event, and making false statements during the investigation.

The extramarital affair, which lasted approximately two years, raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, as the police department involved was frequently litigated in the district. While no direct case presided over by the judge involved the officer or department, the committee found this was due to happenstance, not mitigation efforts. The conduct was described as demonstrating “a gross lack of judgment” and creating an uncomfortable environment for staff, also making the judge vulnerable to extortion.

Regarding the partisan political event, the judge attended an event hosted by a district attorney’s campaign, which violated Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, prohibiting political activity. Although the judge claimed attendance was for reuniting with colleagues and no political engagement occurred, the event’s purpose was to promote the campaign.

The most serious finding related to the false statements made to the Chief Circuit Judge and Chief District Judge. The judge initially denied sexual intercourse in the courthouse and denied knowing who the allegation concerned, which the committee deemed a violation of JC&D Rules for failing to cooperate with the investigation and attempting to conceal misconduct. While the judge later recanted these statements, the committee noted this did not absolve liability, as considerable time and resources had already been expended.

On February 11, 2026, the Judicial Council adopted the special committee’s findings and recommended sanctions, including a private reprimand, letters of apology to former law clerks, foregoing service as chief judge, and indefinite refraining from serving on Judicial Conference committees. The committee considered a more severe sanction but ultimately opted for a private reprimand, citing the judge’s correction of false statements, subsequent candor, unlikelihood of future misconduct, and otherwise exemplary service.

The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, in its review, found no error of law or abuse of discretion and affirmed the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council’s order.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Federal Judge Reprimanded for Courthouse Sex with Law Enforcement Officer and False Statements appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Source: NonDoc

The post Candidate for Kay/Noble District Judge Challenges Oklahoma Law Restricting Political Affiliation Disclosure appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Friday, May 22, 2026, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline placed Lehigh County District Judge Amy L. Zanelli on judicial diversion and appointed a mentor as part of a program to resolve allegations of misconduct.

Zanelli, who took office in 2022, is accused of various rule violations, including using profanity in front of staff, maintaining a “book of grudges,” and keeping a sexually explicit calendar visible to employees. She also faces accusations of refusing to allow a defendant to cross-examine a victim, being unavailable or tardy for work, and exhibiting impatience and discourtesy.

The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board filed a complaint against Zanelli earlier this year. As part of the diversion program, Zanelli will meet with her appointed mentor, Monroe County District Judge Danielle Travagline, at least six times by the end of 2026. She will also be on a one-year probationary period.

Her attorney, Sam Stretton, stated that Zanelli has been participating in the program “de facto” for several months, regularly meeting with her mentor, a therapist, and a psychologist. Stretton expressed optimism that the early termination of her probation may be requested due to her progress.

The allegations detailed in the complaint include negative commentary in the “book of grudges” about individuals who conducted business in her court. One entry reportedly described a local attorney with a derogatory term, and Zanelli allegedly encouraged staff to add to the book, which was started in November 2023 and removed from her office in early 2024.

Additionally, she is accused of an “improper demeanor” during a 2022 hearing where she made a defendant wait in the hall after murmuring, and the defendant, who lacked legal representation, was denied the opportunity to cross-examine a witness.

Further accusations point to habitual lateness for 9 a.m. proceedings, frequent absences on Fridays, and two-week absences during each summer month. These alleged lateness and absences reportedly caused “extreme inconvenience” and additional work for her staff, who had to reschedule hearings and manage public complaints about court business delays.

The diversion program aims to give judges a second chance, and Stretton noted that Zanelli is in her first term and adjusting to the role can take time.

In addition to mentoring, Zanelli is required to attend continuing education programs, study relevant materials, and discuss issues with her mentor. Travagline may also observe Zanelli in court as necessary. If Zanelli successfully completes the program, no disciplinary action will be taken.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline Places Judge Amy L. Zanelli on Judicial Diversion Program appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Friday, May 29, 2026, Beau Harvey filed a complaint and petition for a Peremptory Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Ohio, naming Judges William Finnegan and S. Dwight Osterud as respondents. The filing, case number 2026-0661, alleges that both judges have engaged in the unauthorized exercise of judicial power.

Harvey contends that Judge Finnegan lacked proper assignment to preside over case number CRB-25-02887 in the Toledo Municipal Court. The petition states that Judge Finnegan exercised judicial power without authorization from the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court and that all actions he took in this matter should be vacated. Harvey’s filing points to an entry of rescission for Judge Finnegan’s assignment, effective February 27, 2026, for a different case (CRB-24-08399), suggesting an improper continuation of his involvement in CRB-25-02887.

Furthermore, the petition asserts that Judge Osterud, despite being assigned to case CRB-25-02887 on February 27, 2026, also lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to alleged structural errors in the charging instrument. The complaint details that the original complaint filed on April 9, 2025, was defective, citing an invalid statute and omitting essential elements of the crime. Specifically, it claims the complaint failed to properly allege the required “mens rea,” omitted a numerical designation of the ordinance, and was not sworn before an authorized official.

Harvey argues that the charging instrument is “fatally flawed” and its defects are structural, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction. He contends that the failure to properly charge a criminal offense means the court has no authority to proceed. The Relator also highlights that the complaint was sworn by an officer within the Toledo Municipal Court and filed with colleagues, violating the requirement for a complaint to be sworn by a detached third-party magistrate to establish probable cause.

The petition requests an immediate order granting the Peremptory Writ of Prohibition, as well as an alternative writ that would stay case CRB-25-02887, prohibit Judge Osterud from commencing a jury trial, and order transcripts to be prepared for indigent defendants. Additionally, the Relator seeks an order for the respondents to show cause why the writ should not be made permanent, requesting the vacation of the case complaint and summons due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Beau Harvey Challenges Jurisdiction of Toledo Judges in Ohio Supreme Court Filing appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The complaint alleges that Judge Blanchard’s actions have degraded public confidence in the judiciary, harmed litigants and other individuals involved in court proceedings, and created a backlog of cases.

Among the charges are a pattern and practice of failing to diligently discharge judicial duties, failing to follow the law, and exhibiting bias against attorneys. Additionally, Blanchard is accused of failing to disqualify herself from cases where she previously served as an attorney, and of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against probate court staff. The complaint also states that she allowed other court officials under her control to engage in similar harassing behavior and failed to maintain professional competence in judicial administration.

The report highlights instances where Judge Blanchard was reportedly late to hearings, including one occasion where she cited walking her dogs as the reason for her tardiness to an involuntary commitment docket. This delay had significant consequences, as evidenced by an email from hospital staff detailing how the cancellation and rescheduling of a patient’s hearing resulted in an additional two weeks of hospitalization.

The email further explained that this delay prevented the patient from being home for Thanksgiving, incurred unnecessary hospitalization costs, and caused emotional distress to the patient and their loved ones. The cancellation of dockets was also noted to disrupt hospital operations, delay care for other patients, and pose a threat to public safety.

In another case mentioned, an individual was held for 18 days before a hearing, despite state law requiring probable cause hearings within seven days of any imposed liberty limitation or temporary treatment. The complaint also addresses human resources issues, including accusations that court staff transferred to the Bessemer location faced retaliation and were given little to no work commensurate with their skills.

One particularly poignant account describes a clerk who requested a transfer back to the Birmingham Division to visit her sister, who was dying of cancer. The clerk found the commute to Bessemer difficult, and despite expressing her situation to a judge, Judge Blanchard reportedly never responded to her email. Tragically, the clerk was unable to reach the hospital in time to say goodbye to her sister due to traffic while commuting from Bessemer.

The full report further details how Blanchard’s conduct impacted hundreds of conservatorship and guardianship cases.

Judge Blanchard was suspended from the bench late last month, and retired Judge Sherri Friday was sworn in to replace her.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post 120-Page Misconduct Complaint Against Suspended Alabama Judge Yashiba Blanchard Details Seven Charges of Judicial Misconduct appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2026, Gregory L. McDougall Jr. filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio.

The appeal stems from a judgment entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, in Court of Appeals Case Number 116244, entered on April 13, 2026.

McDougall, representing himself (pro se) and without legal counsel, asserts that this case invokes the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction due to substantial constitutional questions.

The underlying matter involves a motion by respondent Judge Anne Walton Keller to dismiss a writ of prohibition filed by McDougall.

The Court of Appeals granted this motion, finding that Judge Keller possessed the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor cases and actions concerning the enforcement of temporary protection orders.

The court cited precedent stating that errors in the exercise of jurisdiction render a judgment voidable, not void.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Notice of Appeal Filed in Supreme Court of Ohio Challenging Dismissal of Writ Against Judge Anne Walton Keller appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The complaint details numerous allegations against Blanchard, painting a picture of a Probate Court run in an incompetent and unprofessional manner. She is accused of routinely targeting attorneys and staff, and of manufacturing a backlog that caused significant disruptions, particularly in cases of involuntary commitments.

The commission’s charges include a pattern of failing to diligently discharge judicial duties, disregarding the law, exhibiting bias against attorneys, and failing to disqualify herself from cases where she had previously served as an attorney. Furthermore, Blanchard is accused of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against probate court staff, and of allowing other court officials under her direction to engage in similar behavior. Her failure to maintain professional competence in judicial administration is also cited.

One significant area of concern highlighted in the complaint is the delay in involuntary commitment hearings. According to the complaint, Blanchard did not hold such a hearing until September, nine months into her term. She is accused of frequently being late to court, imposing strict limits on the number of cases heard, and canceling hearings shortly before they were scheduled to begin. In one instance, a hearing for a patient awaiting discharge from inpatient care was canceled, leading to the hospital emailing Blanchard’s office multiple times to request a hearing to prevent “avoidable undue and emotional distress for the patient.”

The hospital noted that the cancellation and rescheduling would result in the patient remaining hospitalized for an additional two weeks, incurring unnecessary costs and causing emotional distress to the patient and their loved ones. The complaint states that this disruption to the docket delayed care for other patients, potentially posing a threat to public safety and creating untenable operational positions for hospital staff.

The sequence of events was described as a disregard for the rights of patients, their families, and the operational efficiency of the hospital. A hearing was eventually held after a third request, with the patient reportedly “lying in bed crying and upset.” The complaint also alleges that court staff shifted cases to another judge to avoid due-process violations, that Blanchard held hearings outside statutory time windows, and that she misrepresented the frequency of cancellations and facility notification to Presiding Circuit Judge Elisabeth French.

The complaint also outlines allegations of financial and emotional harm to families due to Blanchard’s alleged failure to promptly handle probate cases, including guardianship and estate matters. It cites 24 examples of cases where hearings were canceled or delayed, forcing individuals to wait months or even a year for resolutions. One attorney reportedly expressed extreme concern about a client’s well-being due to a hearing rescheduling, to which Blanchard’s staff responded with understanding, noting another case on the docket in a similar predicament.

Additionally, Blanchard is accused of repeatedly seeking special probate judge appointments, including a “blanket order” for an attorney to cover her during conferences, which she reportedly used to work on orders from home. A request for such an appointment in April 2026 was denied.

The complaint further details alleged patterns of attorney intimidation, including the filing of improper orders, threats of contempt, and an unsupported State Bar complaint. Blanchard is also accused of filing a police report against two attorneys, resulting in their photographs being shared with courthouse security. The presiding circuit judge reportedly met with Blanchard and the Sheriff’s Office, with Blanchard expressing distrust for the two attorneys and stating she did not want them in her courtroom.

A significant portion of the complaint addresses the alleged treatment of probate staff, including the reassignment of employees from Birmingham to Bessemer with little notice. Despite Blanchard’s claim that additional staff in Bessemer was requested, the complaint asserts this was not the case. The complaint highlights that moving staff to Bessemer was logistically unsound, with significantly more open cases in the Birmingham Division compared to the Bessemer Division.

Blanchard is also accused of indifference to staff requesting transfers back to Birmingham, citing an example of a woman whose commute was extended by 40 minutes, making it difficult to care for her dying sister. Blanchard reportedly did not respond to this request, and shortly thereafter, the clerk’s sister died, with the clerk being unable to reach the hospital in time due to traffic from Bessemer.

Finally, the complaint alleges that Blanchard targeted Chief Clerk Amanda Reid, making inappropriate comments and attempting to manufacture performance and insubordination issues against her. Reid was moved out of her office and had her access to the necessary tools and files limited. Her desk was moved to a cubicle in front of her bailiff, and she allegedly faced retaliation for complying with a subpoena from the Judicial Inquiry Commission.

In total, Blanchard faces seven charges for violating multiple provisions of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. The case will be presided over by the Court of the Judiciary, a nine-judge panel led by Judge William Cole of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Judicial Inquiry Commission will act as prosecutor, and Blanchard will have the opportunity to defend herself. The Court of the Judiciary has the authority to remove, suspend, or censure judges for misconduct.

Source: WBRC 6 News

The post Alabama Judge Yashiba Blanchard Indefinitely Suspended on Misconduct Charges appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Thursday, May 21, 2026, Queens Daily Eagle reported that the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct’s investigation into former Brooklyn Judge Edward King led to his arrest by the FBI for allegedly defrauding real estate investors of millions of dollars. The commission’s inquiry began months before federal charges were filed, stemming from a complaint about King’s conduct.

The New York Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) typically receives thousands of complaints annually regarding judges across the state, with most dismissed without further investigation. However, the complaint against King was deemed significant due to the severity of the accusations, prompting the commission to launch an inquiry in December 2025. This investigation involved gathering basic facts and conducting interviews, which revealed substantial grounds for a full-scale probe.

As the commission’s investigation progressed, Judge King resigned from the bench in January 2026. Under state law, his resignation ended the commission’s ability to continue its investigation. However, instead of closing the case, the CJC forwarded its findings to prosecutors. This action paved the way for the FBI to arrest King and his alleged accomplice, real estate investor Sam Sprei, several months later. Both King and Sprei now face potential prison sentences of up to 20 years.

Prosecutors allege that King and Sprei exploited the judge’s position to lure investors into fraudulent schemes. The funds were reportedly not invested as promised; instead, King and Sprei allegedly kept the money for themselves and failed to reimburse victims who sought their funds back.

Joseph Belluck, the chair of the CJC, highlighted King’s case as an example of the commission’s role in safeguarding the integrity of the courts. He stated that despite the unfortunate circumstances, the commission’s process functioned as intended.

The CJC, established in 1975, is the sole state agency empowered to discipline judges or remove them from office for misconduct. In the preceding year, 15 judges voluntarily resigned following the initiation of commission investigations into complaints against them. The commission has experienced a consistent increase in complaints over the past five years, with its 2026 annual report indicating 1,504 complaints in 2020, a figure that rose to 3,363 by 2025.

Despite the rising volume of complaints, the proportion leading to preliminary inquiries or full investigations remains relatively low. In 2025, only 582 out of over 3,000 complaints warranted a preliminary inquiry, and just 141 of those progressed to a full investigation. Many complaints are filed by civil litigants or criminal defendants dissatisfied with a judge’s rulings, but the commission does not assess the validity of judicial decisions, a power reserved for appellate courts.

Belluck attributes the increase in complaints not to a decline in judicial quality but to a more polarized political climate, which has led to a historic low in public trust in the judiciary, with judges increasingly perceived as politically motivated. Social media has also significantly contributed to the rise in complaints, either by drawing attention to specific cases or decisions, or through judges’ own online activities. The commission has had to regularly train judges on appropriate online conduct.

Belluck noted that a common concern among judges is how to avoid commission scrutiny, with his advice being to steer clear of social media. He believes that social media use and accessibility have driven the increase in complaints. Belluck, appointed to the commission in 2008, views the complaints received as a reflection of the prevailing political and societal climate. He cited the #MeToo movement and increased media focus on sexual misconduct as leading to a rise in sexual harassment complaints, and more recently, immigration crackdowns have resulted in more complaints regarding racial discrimination.

The commission holds a unique position as the only entity with the authority to remove judges for misconduct or criminal actions. Belluck expressed hope that King’s case will encourage more rigorous vetting of judicial candidates. He also believes King’s case has reaffirmed the commission’s effectiveness in deterring misconduct within the courts and aims to increase its visibility so the public is aware of where to report judicial impropriety. Belluck emphasized the commission’s significant role in addressing judicial misconduct and hopes the case will encourage individuals with information to report it for investigation.

Source: Queens Daily Eagle

The post New York Judicial Watchdog’s Probe of Brooklyn Judge Edward King Ends in FBI Arrest appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.