On Wednesday, August 17, 2022, the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission entered an order denying a motion filed by Manzie T. Broxton, Judge of the Magistrate Court of Washington County. The case is styled as ‘In the Matter of Judge Manzie T. Broxton’ with case number #S22Z0592.
The allegations of Judge Broxton’s misconduct set forth in the formal charges date from shortly after he assumed the position of Chief Magistrate Judge of Washington County on January 1, 2021, having served as an Associate Judge of that Court since 1995. The alleged misconduct includes claims that Judge Broxton improperly detained a citizen; engaged in ex parte communications; used members of his church instead of court staff to perform critical court tasks; and allowed his religious beliefs to guide his judicial decision-making, among others.
On 6 June 2022, Judge Broxton filed the subject motion, entitled ‘Motion to Strike Witnesses’ Testimony and Evidence.’ The judge is seeking to exclude from his JQC Rule 24 hearing certain statements he made during his August 24, 2021 interview with Investigator Gosart and Investigative Counsel Davis. The judge argued that Investigator Gosart and Investigative Counsel Davis failed to advise him of his right to the assistance of counsel at every stage of JQC proceedings, which led him to provide damaging information to the JQC that should not be used at his hearing.
The order reads:
“In his motion, Judge Broxton has alleged no specific acts of discrimination by either Investigator Gosart or Investigative Counsel Davis during the 24 August 2021 interview. Rather, Judge Broxton merely (and solely) asserts that Investigator Gosart and Investigative Counsel Davis made “many statements … regarding Judge Broxton[’s] medical condition” during their interview with him. He does not explain if the JQC personnel was simply acknowledging the medical condition, confirming that it was not an impediment to conducting the interview or exploring the extent to which it might have impaired the judge’s ability to perform his judicial functions. Instead, Judge Broxton concludes, without any apparent basis, that such discussions amounted to an “obvious bias” that somehow constitutes a violation of his rights under the ADA.”
The order goes on:
“Finally, Judge Broxton has offered no legal authority demonstrating that the proper remedy for the ADA violation he alleges would be to exclude any of the information that Investigator Gosart and Investigative Counsel Davis obtained during their interview with him. Given all of this, the Hearing Panel finds that Judge Broxton has failed to prove that his rights under the ADA were violated and so will not exclude, suppress, or strike any evidence on that basis.”
The order continues:
“JQC disciplinary proceedings are not criminal proceedings. As such, at no point during his interview was Judge Broxton entitled to an admonition from Investigator Gosart or Investigative Counsel Davis that he had the right to hire an attorney and that that hired attorney could be with him during his non-custodial interview. Nor was Judge Broxton entitled to be warned that his statements to Investigator Gosart and Investigative Counsel Davis could be used as part of the JQC Director’s investigation into the complaints that had been brought against him.”
The order additionally notes:
“Accordingly, the Hearing Panel finds no merit in Judge Broxton’s additional argument that Investigator Gosart and Investigative Counsel Davis violated any right Judge Broxton enjoys under JQC Rule 9. For these reasons, Judge Broxton’s motion to strike is DENIED.”
The Judge’s Courtroom is at 132 W. Haynes Street in Sandersville and can be reached at 478-552-3591.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
