In the realm of justice, where the pursuit of truth and fairness should reign supreme, there are moments when the comedic absurdity of human folly takes center stage. Two recent stories have emerged, exposing the peculiar missteps of judges entangled in the web of judicial misconduct.
Our first tale transports us to the courtrooms of Douglas County, Georgia, where Probate Judge Christina Peterson finds herself at the center of a whirlwind of allegations. From improper social media postings to engaging in abusive interactions with county personnel, the laundry list of misconduct charges spans both her time as a practicing attorney and her current tenure on the bench. It’s as if Judge Peterson stumbled upon a guidebook titled “How to Stray Farthest from Judicial Excellence” and followed its recommendations to the letter.
Despite her attempts to dismiss or seek summary judgment on the charges, the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission saw through her efforts. In a display of sound judgment, they denied her motion for immediate review, acknowledging the existence of genuine issues of material fact. Kudos to the Commission for not succumbing to Judge Peterson’s theatrics!
But that’s not all. Our second story takes us to the courtrooms of South Carolina, where the spotlight falls on former Circuit Court Judge Casey Manning. On his final day before retirement, Judge Manning orchestrated a plea deal that has left eyebrows raised and tongues wagging. The deal involved convicted murderer Jeroid Price, whose sentence was allegedly reduced without the proper legal authority. It’s the kind of audacious move one might expect from a character in a courtroom comedy, not from a seasoned judge who should embody the principles of justice.
To compound the absurdity, the plea deal was shrouded in secrecy, leaving the victim’s family, the Smalls, in the dark. The Smalls rightly argue that, as the family of the victim, they had a constitutional right to be informed of any proceedings related to the case. However, Judge Manning seemed to operate on a different wavelength, where judicial ethics and the law were mere inconveniences.
Adding a final touch to this comedy of errors, Manning retired on the same day the improper order was signed, effectively evading any oversight or possibility of challenge. It was as if he exited the stage, leaving the audience dumbfounded and the principles of justice yearning for closure. The audacity displayed by Manning could rival the antics of the most famous comedians.
In the realm of judicial misconduct, these two stories serve as cautionary tales, reminding us that even those entrusted with upholding the law can stumble into the realm of buffoonery. As we navigate these incidents, it is essential that we remain vigilant and demand accountability from those in positions of power. The comedy of errors displayed by Judges Peterson and Manning should prompt us to scrutinize the workings of our courts and uphold the ideals of justice.
Let us not forget that justice, though a serious matter, can sometimes be found in the absurd. As we examine these tales of judicial misconduct, we must remember the importance of maintaining a keen eye on those who wield the gavel. In the words of a wise observer of human folly, “Laughter is the closest distance between two people.” In the spirit of that sentiment, let us continue to shed light on the quirks and missteps of those in power, for laughter and justice can be powerful catalysts for change.
Disclaimer: The news on Abusive Discretion is from the public record. Editorials and opinions are light-hearted opinions about very serious topics not stated as statements of fact but rather satirical and opinion based on the information that is linked above.
