New Jersey Judge Carl L. Marshall Files Answer to Complaint Over Warrant Handling in Criminal Case

On Friday, August 2, 2024, Carl L. Marshall, a judge serving in multiple municipal courts across New Jersey, responded to a complaint that had been filed against him by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC).

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Carl L. Marshall,” with case number ACJC 2024-043.

The ACJC complaint, filed on July 1st, centered around incidents that allegedly occurred while Judge Marshall was presiding over cases in Elizabeth, Roselle, and Plainfield between 2018 and 2023. In his answer, Judge Marshall denied some of the allegations and claimed he did not have sufficient knowledge about other aspects of the complaint.

The first count of the complaint discussed a 2018 warrant issued for defendant Anthony Hawthorne regarding a criminal mischief charge. According to the complaint, Judge Marshall inappropriately contacted a court administrator in 2021 to have the “at-large” or unserved warrant recalled, rather than having Hawthorne first processed through the Central Judicial Processing court as required. In his response, Judge Marshall stated he was unaware the warrant was an “at-large” one and not a standard “bench” warrant at the time.

Additionally, Judge Marshall asserted that the difference between warrant types would have been relevant to the proper handling of the case but that as a non-CJP judge, he did not have full responsibility in the matter. A separate judge ultimately dismissed the charge against Hawthorne in 2021. However, the warrant remained active, leading to Hawthorne’s inappropriate arrest in 2023 even though the case was resolved.

The second count cited Judge Marshall’s use of LinkedIn to identify himself as a judge, allegedly in violation of conduct rules prohibiting using one’s judicial position for personal or economic gain. Judge Marshall claimed in his answer that he was unaware his LinkedIn presence was inappropriate until informed of the issue.

Judge Marshall’s answer also provided biographical details, denied intentionally violating any conduct canons, and asked that the complaint be dismissed. The case will now proceed with the ACJC responding to Judge Marshall’s filing and potentially scheduling oral arguments before making a final ruling, a process that may take several more months.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.