On Monday, June 9, 2025, the Hearing Panel of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) denied Fulton County Judge Shermela J. Williams’s request for an evidentiary hearing related to her motion to quash formal charges. The panel also scheduled an oral argument to address the motion, set for June 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. via Zoom videoconference, accessible to the public.
Judge Williams filed the motion on May 21, 2025, the first day of the final hearing for complaints against her, identified as JQC Complaint Nos. 2022-102, 2023-223, and 2023-348 under Supreme Court Docket No. S24Z1139, and additional complaints under Docket No. S25Z0722, including JQC Complaint Nos. 2023-813, 2023-1023, 2024-123, 2024-197, 2024-294, 2024-661, 2024-887, 2024-691, and 2024-960.
The motion sought to dismiss the charges or, alternatively, pause the proceedings and hold an evidentiary hearing. While the panel denied a stay on May 21, it deferred consideration of the motion to quash until after receiving responses from the JQC Director and Judge Williams.
On June 7, 2025, Judge Williams submitted a reply supporting her motion, addressing procedural concerns and allegations of bias within the JQC’s Investigative Panel. She argued that the charges were compromised by conflicts of interest involving Judges Stacey Hydrick and T. Scott Darrisaw, members of the Investigative Panel. According to her filing, these judges failed to disclose their public support and financial contributions to her political opponent, Judge Rebecca Reider, which she claimed violated the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Williams asserted that this non-disclosure undermined the impartiality required in JQC proceedings and eroded public confidence in the judiciary.
The reply further contended that the JQC Director’s response did not sufficiently address issues of impropriety or due process violations. Judge Williams emphasized that the Canons of Judicial Ethics require judges to uphold public trust, a standard she alleged was not met. She also disputed the Director’s claim that her motion was untimely, noting that the Hearing Panel’s Presiding Officer has discretion to accept motions past deadlines. She argued that the Investigative Panel’s failure to disclose critical information delayed her ability to respond, impacting her rights.
Judge Williams clarified that her motion aimed to dismiss the charges, not to recuse the involved judges. She claimed the Investigative Panel lacked a proper quorum to vote on the charges due to the alleged disqualifications of Judges Hydrick and Darrisaw, rendering any decisions invalid under JQC rules. Her request for an evidentiary hearing sought to examine the relationships and contributions of these judges and their roles in the decision-making process, arguing that such scrutiny was necessary for a fair resolution.
The JQC’s order, issued by Presiding Officer Judge Alison T. Burleson, confirmed the denial of the evidentiary hearing and outlined the oral argument’s logistics. The Zoom meeting details, including the meeting ID and passcode, were provided, along with dial-in options for various U.S. locations.
The JQC Director was tasked with arranging a court reporter if requested by either party.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
