Naruecha Gentyson | Moments | Getty Images
A disciplinary panel found that a federal judge was disciplined for having sex in the chamber with a high-ranking law enforcement official within earshot of his staff, attending a partisan political event and lying to a senior judge who investigated the allegations.
But the identities of the judges and the district courts in which they sit were kept private by the U.S. Judicial Council’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disabilities in a decision announced Friday, which Law360 and Reuters reported earlier.
The seven-judge panel upheld judicial misconduct findings issued in February by the Judicial Council for the Eleventh Circuit, the federal appellate circuit that handles cases arising in federal district courts in Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
The 11th Circuit imposed sanctions on the judge, who agreed, including ordering him to write letters of apology to six former law clerks interviewed in the investigation. refrain from serving as presiding judge of the federal district in which they sit; and refrain from attending committees of the Judicial Conference.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Administrative Office of Courts declined to comment on the decision affirming these sanctions or on the judge’s name being withheld.
According to the ruling, 11th Circuit Chief Judge William Pryor was made aware of the complaint against the anonymous judge in September based on a memo received by the district’s chief judge.
“The information contained in the presiding district judge’s memorandum was obtained from one of the subject judge’s law clerks,” the ruling said.
“The judicial clerk reported that the subject judge engaged in sexual acts with uniformed law enforcement officers on multiple occasions during working hours in the chamber within earshot of the judicial staff,” the ruling said.
“Law clerks also reported that the subject judge failed to provide guidance to law clerks or edit their work, displayed visible anger by yelling and swearing at law clerks, and on one occasion told staff at a district attorney event that the judge had “drank too many martinis the night before.”
According to the ruling, after being notified by the presiding circuit judge, the judge targeted in the complaint filed a response denying the allegations as “outrageous” and “baseless.”
A special committee was then appointed to investigate the allegations, which included interviews with six former clerks of the judge and a review of documents, surveillance footage and visitor login information.
The ruling also includes “conducting an inspection in a courtroom with a similar layout to determine whether a courtroom officer sitting outside the courtroom can hear sounds from inside, and arranging for a forensic examination of sofa cushions in the affected judge’s courtroom.”
In December, the special committee released a report finding that the judge “engaged in judicial misconduct, including having an affair with a high-ranking law enforcement officer and having sex in the judge’s chambers during working hours.”
The commission also found that the judge engaged in misconduct, including attending a campaign event for the district attorney and making false statements “material to the investigation” to Chief Circuit Judge Pryor and Chief District Judge.
“Specifically, the subject judge denied having sex in the courthouse and denied knowing to whom the allegations pertained,” the ruling said.
The commission revealed that the affair lasted for about two years and was with a senior police officer.
“On multiple occasions, during working hours, the subject judge and a police officer engaged in sexual intercourse in the subject judge’s office within earshot of the subject judge’s staff,” the ruling said.
“Furthermore, during the period of the case, the police department was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases pending in the district,” according to the ruling.
The judge did not disclose this matter to other judges, staff, or litigants.
“The affected judges could have been assigned to cases in which police officers or police departments had an interest, which could have resulted in a conflict or the appearance of a conflict,” the ruling said.
“Although the Special Committee found no instances in which the Subject Judge presided over a case in which either a police officer or a police department was a party or witness, the Special Committee found that this was due to “coincidence,” rather than an effort by the Subject Judge to alleviate a potential conflict.”
The incident left the judge “vulnerable to blackmail and possible extortion,” violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, “demonstrated a serious lack of judgment” and created an “unpleasant and inconvenient” environment for staff, the ruling said.
The ruling also states that the special committee that recommended sanctions against the judge “ultimately decided not to recommend more severe sanctions because (1) the subject judge corrected his false statements and subsequently responded candidly to the task force; (2) the subject judge was unlikely to engage in similar misconduct in the future because the subject judge had disassociated himself from law enforcement officials and promised to avoid partisan political events in the future; and (3) “The judge in question had rendered exemplary service in other respects.” court. ”
“The Special Committee was ‘deeply concerned’ by the judge’s conduct, but explained that the judge had ‘demonstrated a strong tendency toward rehabilitation and continued to serve the judiciary diligently,'” the ruling said.
