On Monday, June 2, 2025, Courtney Veal, Director of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), responded to a motion filed by Judge Shermela J. Williams to quash formal charges against her. The motion argues that the charges should be dismissed due to alleged improper conduct by two judges on the Commission’s Investigative Panel.
Judge Williams, who is facing multiple complaints, claims that Judges Stacey Hydrick and Victoria Darrisaw, both members of the Investigative Panel, failed to disclose their 2020 campaign contributions to her opponent, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rebecca Reider, during the investigation into her conduct. Specifically, Judge Hydrick donated $2,800 and Judge Darrisaw contributed $200 to Judge Reider’s re-election campaign, raising questions about their impartiality.
In her response, Veal stated that Judge Williams’ motion is untimely and lacks the necessary legal support. She emphasized that no legal precedent exists in Georgia that allows for the quashing of charges in such circumstances. Veal noted that the Investigative Panel began looking into Judge Williams in February 2022, and the motion to quash was filed on the eve of the final hearing, May 20, 2025.
The response outlined that the rules governing the JQC require motions for recusal to be filed within a reasonable timeframe. Veal argued that Judge Williams’ motion, which came more than five years after the campaign contributions were made, does not meet this standard. She pointed out that the JQC Rules stipulate that a party must file for recusal within a reasonable time after discovering grounds for it, and that this standard had long passed.
Veal further clarified that the judges serving on the Investigative Panel are not exercising judicial powers in this context but are performing investigative and prosecutorial functions under the guidelines set by the state’s enabling statute. This distinction, she argued, means that the stricter recusal standards applicable to judges acting in a judicial capacity do not apply to the Investigative Panel members.
The response also referenced case law to support the argument that the judges’ contributions do not constitute sufficient grounds for recusal. According to Veal, past rulings indicate that personal relationships or minor campaign contributions do not automatically disqualify prosecutors from their roles in investigations.
Veal’s filing concluded with a request for the Hearing Panel to deny Judge Williams’ motion without a hearing, citing the motion’s lack of timeliness and legal foundation.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
