On Wednesday, June 25, 2025, the Hearing Panel of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) denied a motion filed by Judge Shermela J. Williams to quash formal charges against her.
The motion sought either to dismiss the formal charges or to stay the proceedings for an evidentiary hearing. The JQC is currently addressing multiple complaints against Judge Williams, identified as JQC Complaint Nos. 2022-102, 2023-223, 2023-348, and others. The formal charges against her were initially filed on June 6, 2024, with additional charges following in February 2025.
Judge Williams contended that the motion was timely, claiming she acted promptly upon discovering relevant information. However, the JQC Director argued that the motion was filed too late, as the information in question had been publicly available for several years. The panel found the argument for timeliness unpersuasive, emphasizing that the details surrounding the campaign contributions of other judges had been accessible since at least May 2020.
The context of the case includes the election in which Judge Williams defeated former Judge Rebecca C. Rieder in 2020, a campaign supported financially by judges who later served on the JQC’s Investigative Panel. Notably, Judge Stacey K. Hydrick and Judge Victoria S. Darrisaw both contributed to Rieder’s campaign. The JQC’s investigation into Judge Williams commenced in February 2022, leading to the formal charges that she sought to contest.
The panel’s ruling addressed Judge Williams’ request for an evidentiary hearing concerning the relationships between the Investigative Panel members and her opponent. However, the panel concluded that the motion did not present new evidence warranting such a hearing. Furthermore, it was noted that Judge Williams did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims regarding alleged bias or conflicts of interest among the judges.
In its analysis, the Hearing Panel emphasized that the rules governing the commission’s Investigative Panel require recusal only in specific circumstances, which the judges did not meet. The panel determined that both Judge Darrisaw and Judge Hydrick were not obligated to recuse themselves from the proceedings based on existing regulations.
The decision also highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural timelines established by the JQC rules. The panel reiterated that the failure to raise the motion within the prescribed time limits was a significant factor in denying Judge Williams’ request.
In conclusion, the Hearing Panel of the JQC found that the motion to quash the formal charges was without merit and denied it in full.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
