John Battaglia Texas- When Judges must testify

Judge Holland - Charles Dean Hood case

Judge Murphy

Cameron Todd Willingham case, see July 2005 Notice to Judge Warder

Willingham_an_innocent_Texan_executed_JDVDoct.2009.jpg (693654 Byte)

Willingham, an innocent Texan executed- Dahlia Lithwick asks: Will the Supreme Court even bat an eyelash? ..."So unattractive are our Lawyers & Judges at the beginning of this new epoch, but then it only takes a loan & a liar to get into any law school these days." JDVD -October 2009

When I tagged Jugde Warder & Dallas D.A.'s for ... in 2005 JDVD (search here with "ctrl f" for names)

Finally, Finaltiy - Thomas Miller-El - The case

Judge Warder ( Judge in my case, D.A. covering her "Ridding" Jury & Trail) -

News, October 2009 - Two men go free in wronful-conviction case...

Michael Anderson and Alonzo Hardy ...

Judge Sharon Keller : ...

Judging the judges

Does secret process let errant jurists get away with breaking the law?
By LISE OLSEN
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Dec. 14, 2009
RARE DISCIPLINE

Just seven federal judges have been formally disciplined in a decade, based on court statistics and documents:

An unnamed judge: Privately censured in 2000 for a “severe error in judgment” by the 10th Circuit.

U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald of Washington: Publicly reprimanded in 2000 for passing notes with “crude and pejorative comments about litigants” by the 9th Circuit.

U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla of Tennessee: Disciplined in 2001 for having abused lawyers verbally, and in one case physically, by the 6th Circuit.

Judge Delissa Ridgway of New York: Reprimanded in 2003 for failing to meet work standards imposed by the New York City-based U.S. Court of International Trade

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real of California: Publicly reprimanded in 2006 for misleading circuit judges about allegations that he misused his power to help a probationer by assuming control of her bankruptcy. Privately reprimanded by the 9th Circuit in 2008 for failing to provide reasoning for decisions as required.

U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana: Recommended in 2007 for consideration of impeachment by the 5th Circuit.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of Texas: Publicly reprimanded in 2007 for “sexual harassment.” Later recommended for consideration of impeachment in 2009. He is now in prison.

— Lise Olsen, Chronicle
RELATED REPORT
Despite troubles, some on bench keep salaries One federal judge got arrested for driving drunk while dressed in drag. Others stood accused of frequenting prostitutes, a strip club and a shady escort service; sexually assaulting female court employees; sucker-punching a stranger; or slapping a spouse.

Federal judges have made illegal campaign contributions, falsified court records, and illegally concealed cash gifts and gambling debts. Many more have engaged in unethical or irresponsible acts, according to an investigation by the Houston Chronicle of more than 3,000 judicial misconduct matters nationwide and analysis of related records over 10 years.

Most get away with it.

Only seven judges in the last decade have faced formal disciplinary action as a result of the nation's secretive misconduct review process. In that same period, citizens filed more than 6,000 formal misconduct complaints, the Chronicle found.

One judge was punished anonymously — shielded from shame by the same peers who voted for discipline.

Just two judges who admitted to breaking laws were recommended for the maximum punishment: impeachment and removal from office.

Most disciplinary reviews remain forever shrouded in secrecy to protect federal judges' privacy and ensure their reputations remain unsullied by scurrilous or absurd allegations from prisoners or disgruntled litigants.

“The federal judiciary takes its ethical responsibilities with the utmost seriousness,” said Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, a spokesman for the Judicial Conference of the United States in a statement to the Chronicle. “Every misconduct complaint is carefully reviewed and results in a public written order by a judge. Years of experience has shown that the overwhelming majority of misconduct complaints are from (unhappy) litigants. … Yet, when circumstances warrant, Circuit Judicial Councils have not been hesitant to impose a variety of public and private sanctions, as history has demonstrated.”

Other experts argue that disciplinary probes of high-profile or even criminal allegations should be more open for the sake of the public and the judges.

“Any type of misconduct impacts upon the integrity of judges and erodes public confidence in the federal judiciary,” said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who has fought for years to improve judicial accountability.

Appointed for life
The nation's 1,700 full-time federal judges constitute a caste of elite jurists hand-picked for the difficult and sometimes dangerous job of enforcing our nation's laws and protecting our rights.

Appointed for life by U.S. presidents, district and circuit judges can be removed only by acts of Congress. Bankruptcy and magistrate judges serve limited terms but enjoy formidable power over life, liberty and the assets of others.

Yet, when it comes to misconduct reviews, federal judges privately judge themselves. At the pinnacle of the power structure stand chief circuit judges — a dozen men and women who quietly dismiss about 98 percent of the 700 complaints that arrive annually at regional U.S. courthouses scattered from San Francisco to New Orleans to Washington, D.C., the Chronicle found.

In 2006, a Supreme Court-appointed committee, formed in response to congressional complaints, released a report on the secret disciplinary system. The committee, led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, found supervising judges handled run-of-the-mill matters well, but committed embarrassing errors in controversial cases.

Judges botched five of 17 high-profile reviews, the committee said, describing that “error rate” as “too high” and recommending standardized rules for disciplinary matters. In the aftermath, the Judicial Conference adopted the first national rules on handling complaints against federal judges and, for the first time, all circuit courts made complaint forms available on Web sites, Scirica noted.

Chief judges alone generally decide whether to conduct even a “limited review” — which usually involves reading case documents or sometimes asking a judge to respond. Rarely, those judges form committees to formally investigate — but findings are almost never revealed.

Russell Wheeler, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who helped research the Breyer committee report, told the Chronicle: “If there are credible public allegations that a judge has done something wrong, you ought to show the public you're dealing with it, either to establish the wrongdoing or to clear the name of the judge.”

Former U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent, of Galveston, was convicted of obstruction of justice this year after admitting he lied to judges who in 2007 secretly investigated allegations that he had molested female court employees. In March 2007, his former case manager, Cathy McBroom, filed a formal complaint accusing Kent of repeatedly trying to sexually assault her. But the 5th Circuit's judicial council first described the matter only as “sexual harassment” in a September 2007 reprimand.

The 5th Circuit has never released its investigative records. Ultimately, a criminal probe was launched, but only after the Chronicle documented McBroom's allegations and only after McBroom went to the FBI. Kent was subsequently impeached and imprisoned.

Other documents show Kent had drawn complaints about bias and bursts of temper that were quietly and anonymously handled years before his admitted alcohol, emotional and judgment problems landed him behind bars.

Even when criminal behavior is uncovered, some investigating judges have decided not to share it with the public or police.

In fact, the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section, whose prosecutors specialize in rare criminal allegations involving federal judges, has no public record to show whether any case has ever been referred to them as a result of a judicial disciplinary review, DOJ spokeswoman Laura Sweeney told the Chronicle.

A case in point
Few cases better illustrate the judges' insistence on secrecy than that of former Colorado Chief District Judge Edward Nottingham.

Records show that Nottingham faced at least seven formal complaints over the years, initially for abuse of power and bias, and later for potential criminal allegations. None resulted in formal disciplinary action or prosecution.

Yet in 2007 and 2008, enough had surfaced about Nottingham to prompt creation of two investigating committees, documents released by the Denver-based 10th Circuit show.

First, he was reported to have run up a $3,000 bar tab at a strip club and claimed he drank too much to remember doing it. A disabled woman alleged he'd threatened her over a handicapped parking spot. Later he was accused of frequenting prostitutes and an escort service, using his government-issued cell phone to make dates with call girls, and cruising porn sites on courthouse computers.

“This conduct, whether alleged or admitted, has brought disrepute to the judiciary. To contend otherwise is to declare that, ‘The King Can do No Wrong,' ” one of four complaints said.

The two committees submitted a secret report to the 10th Circuit judicial council on Oct. 8, 2008.

Two days later, a self-described prostitute filed another complaint, claiming Nottingham coached her “to lie to federal investigators” about having paid her “in exchange for sex.”

Abruptly, Nottingham resigned. He said his decision was “in the public interest and the interest of the federal judiciary.”

The misconduct complaints were dismissed as moot. The disciplinary system does not apply to ex-judges, and its findings and recommendations were never released to the public.

Nottingham, now an attorney in Colorado, did not respond to a request for comment.

“This is a democracy. People ought to know what public officials are doing — even those who have life tenure,” said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University. “The public would be better served if the circuit councils and the chief judges provided more and better information.”

Most federal judicial misconduct complaints deserve dismissal. Unreadable rants regularly arrive from litigants or prisoners who misuse the process or fling outrageous claims.

Some involve alleged or perceived criminal behavior outside the courtroom — matters supervising judges are often reluctant to investigate.

In one complaint, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith, assigned to the Southern District of New York, stood accused of encouraging her nephew to cover up knowledge of a summer night's attack on teenage skinny-dipping girls — and hitting a distraught mother who questioned Smith about it, records show.

Smith was approached at a beach campfire by the woman, who swore at the judge and her family, and claimed they were lying to protect others who assaulted her daughters and stole their clothes.

Smith struck the woman and screamed: “You can't call me a (expletive) liar — I'm a U.S. magistrate judge,” a related civil lawsuit alleged.

The judge later denied she'd intentionally hit anyone, records show. “The plaintiff was screaming and yelling obscenities in front of the judge's children … and there was contact between the plaintiff and the judge, whether intentional or not, we'll never know,” Smith's attorney, Kevin Hulslander, told the Chronicle.

A ‘private dispute'
Judicial misconduct rules say that when facts are reasonably in dispute, a chief circuit judge can form an investigating committee. The chief circuit judge for the New York-based 2nd Circuit alone reviewed the complaint and dismissed it in 2007 as a “private dispute between private citizens, one of whom happens to be a judge.” He did not name the judge.

His order concluded that alleged illegal behavior should not automatically be classified as judicial misconduct, even if it involved a crime: “Categorization of an offense under state law is not a sufficient basis for a finding of misconduct,” wrote Dennis Jacobs, chief judge of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

In December 2008, a civil jury found Smith had committed battery, but awarded no damages.

In February 2009, a New York City bankruptcy judge, known for presiding over the breakup of Lehman Brothers, allegedly slapped his wife, who phoned 911, records show. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James M. Peck was arrested, and his wife was taken to a hospital. But charges were dropped after she decided not to cooperate. The judge's attorney described it as a “private matter” and got the record sealed. Peck's attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

The New York 2nd Circuit's chief judge did no public review of the matter.

In February 2008, Boston-based U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Somma, wearing a cocktail dress, was arrested after crashing his Mercedes-Benz into a pickup in New Hampshire. Somma later was convicted of drunken driving and, after taking six weeks of paid leave, resigned.

The judge did not respond to requests for comment.

It's unknown whether there was any formal disciplinary review.

Susan Goldberg, deputy circuit executive, told the Chronicle: “Information pertaining to the referenced matter is confidential.”

Sarah Hinman Ryan of the Albany Times Union contributed to this report.

lise.olsen@chron.com

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6768397.html?

State Commission on Judicial Conduct has the job of judging Texas' judges

Monday, December 14, 2009
By DIANE JENNINGS / The Dallas Morning News
djennings@dallasnews.com

A judge in Houston cleans his gun during a murder trial. A Dallas judge fails to file campaign finance forms. A Waco appeals court justice unlocks his colleague's office and reads papers without permission.

Who you gonna call?

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Though many people, even lawyers, are unfamiliar with the small state agency, Texas has one of the oldest judicial oversight commissions in the country. In recent months, the commission has become better known because of its prosecution of the state's highest criminal appeals judge, Sharon Keller, for her actions in a death penalty case.

But as the legal community awaits a decision from a judge on what to do with Keller, the commission's 14 employees and 13 volunteer commissioners continue to oversee 3,750 judges across Texas.

"A lot of people find this case fascinating, and a lot of groups are looking at it for their own personal and political agendas," said Seana Willing, executive director of the commission. But, she added, "we do have other cases."

The goal of the commission (started in 1965), Willing said, is to safeguard public confidence.

"People put judges on a pedestal, and expect the people wearing those robes and sitting in those positions to adhere to just the highest standard of conduct," she said. But "not everybody is cut out for the position."

If someone complains, the commission investigates. The results are reported to commissioners who decide what, if any action, is warranted. In the early stages, staffers present both sides of an accusation against a jurist, and the accused may present his or her case to the commissioners.

If commissioners decide a case deserves formal proceedings, such as the hearing in the Keller case, the commission adopts a prosecutorial role.

In fiscal year 2009, 1,204 cases were filed. Most are dismissed, but 70 disciplinary actions were issued, with judges receiving punishments ranging from private sanctions to public reprimands.

A felony conviction or a misdemeanor conviction of official misconduct means automatic removal from office, but in most cases, only the state Supreme Court or the Legislature can remove a judge from the bench.

Sometimes the commission persuades judges to resign voluntarily in lieu of disciplinary action. That cooperative approach was preferred by the commission in its early years, said Lillian Hardwick, co-author of the Handbook of Texas Lawyer and Judicial Ethics. By the 1990s, however, the commission had a reputation as a "backwater agency that did nothing to anybody for a long time," as state Rep. Pete Gallego said in an American Bar Association report.

Margaret Reaves was hired as executive director to revitalize the commission. Reaves, who works with the Texas Municipal League, said she revised procedures to make the agency's limited resources, including a current budget of about $800,000, more effective.

"I've always kind of laughed and appreciated the perception that people have had that I gave the agency some teeth," she said. "I'm not sure that that's accurate."

Gallego said the best change Reaves made was to publicize actions taken by the commission. That transparency also was lauded in the 2003 ABA committee report, which called the experience of the Texas commission "a model for other states."

Reaves resigned after four years, and Gallego said he's afraid the commission today is "not as aggressive as they have been in the past."

Willing, who worked with Reaves, said the commission strives to be as open as possible but has to balance privacy issues. Some people think the commission is not aggressive enough, she said, while others "think we have too much power."

Judges generally don't talk about the commission, but retired appellate judge Linda Thomas said the agency is not regarded as passive. "Any judge with any experience at all still has a sinking feeling if they get a message from the commission," she said.

According to the commission's annual report, most of those disciplined by the commission are low-level jurists: 41 percent were justices of the peace in fiscal year 2009.

That doesn't necessarily mean the commission is reluctant to sanction higher-level judges, said Cynthia Gray, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics of the American Judicature Society. "There are more lower-level judges in every state, so statistically you would expect there to be more complaints about them and more action taken," she said.

Willing insists the commission is not afraid to take on district and appellate judges.

"The commission has not backed down from the big case," she said, pointing to the pending Keller case and the case of Nathan Hecht, a Supreme Court justice who was admonished in 2006 for publicly supporting a friend's judicial nomination. The sanction was later overturned.

Because Texas is among a handful of states that elects judges, the ultimate overseers are voters, Willing said. And that can be frustrating, she said. Some judges, such as Dallas Justice of the Peace Thomas Jones, for instance, have been sanctioned several times by the commission but keep getting returned to the bench.

"There are different judges in the state who I think would be elected even if they were standing accused of murder," Willing said. "They're just so popular with the voters."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/l