Latest news with #JudicialCodeofConduct
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas Supreme Court authorizes judge suspensions, orders cooperation with disciplinary probes
The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) A five-member majority of the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the state judicial discipline commission's request for changes to the rules for judges' and justices' conduct in a Thursday per curiam order. The changes concern accusations of judicial misconduct and disciplinary action against judges and justices who face such allegations. The divide among the Supreme Court justices who supported or dissented from the order mirrored conflicts within the court earlier this year. Chief Justice Karen Baker and Associate Justice Courtney Hudson dissented from the order. Thursday's order approved two alterations to the Judicial Code of Conduct: a new provision allowing the court to issue interim suspensions of judges accused of crimes or misconduct and an amendment that broadens an existing rule requiring cooperation with disciplinary authorities and prohibiting retaliation. According to the rule regarding suspensions, the Supreme Court may suspend a judge with pay 'upon notice of the filing of an indictment, information, or complaint charging the judge with a 'serious crime' under state or federal law.' In_re_Rule_of_Jud._Disc._Enforcement A 'serious crime' includes 'any felony or lesser crime that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a judge in other respects' or any crime involving 'interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft or an attempt, conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a 'serious crime,'' the rule states. The rule is based on a model policy from the American Bar Association, and the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission specifically asked the high court for the rule, according to the order. The commission investigates complaints about the conduct of judges and justices and has the authority to recommend disciplinary actions. The rule also allows suspensions for 'other misconduct,' which includes but is not limited to 'witness intimidation, retaliation, or a threat thereof.' Another portion of the code of conduct states that a judge 'shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies' and must not retaliate 'against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation' of judicial misconduct. The amended provision approved by the Supreme Court majority specifies that intimidation is also prohibited and that the rule applies to 'a judge, justice, special judge/justice, judicial candidate, or judge-elect.' Earlier this year, the high court ordered the release of a report alleging that Baker harassed judiciary employees on Dec. 4-5, 2024, after she was elected but before she was sworn in as the state's first elected female chief justice. 'Justice Baker intimidated staff, appears to have targeted female employees of color, indicated an intention to retaliate based on her perception of how employees voted, and indicated an intention to retaliate based on her perception of whether employees were cooperating with Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission's investigation into her colleague's conduct,' the report from the Administrative Office of the Courts human resources department states. UPDATED: Arkansas Supreme Court chief justice harassed court staff, per human resources report Baker co-signed Hudson's dissenting opinion on Thursday's per curiam order. Hudson wrote that the rule regarding suspensions 'presents legitimate due-process concerns.' 'It contains absolutely no requirement that notice be provided to the impacted judge either before or after the interim suspension or that the judge be allowed an opportunity to respond to an allegation of misconduct,' Hudson wrote. She also raised the possibility that the rule violates the state and federal constitutions' ban on adopting rules or laws that govern conduct prior to their adoption. Associate Justice Rhonda Wood responded to Hudson's dissent with a concurring opinion. Wood argued that the new rule creates more due process for judges, not less, because it 'provides guidelines previously nonexistent.' The rule also 'sets out parameters for the current authority' that the Supreme Court has always had to suspend judges accused of misconduct and is not a completely new policy applied retroactively, Wood wrote. Judicial conduct has been at the forefront of the Arkansas Supreme Court since September 2024. Five of Hudson's colleagues referred her to the JDDC for 'flagrant breaches of confidentiality' after she filed then-Chief Justice John Dan Kemp's emails into evidence in her attempt to block the release of emails between her, Baker and others in response to a FOIA request from Arkansas Business. Arkansas Supreme Court refers one of its own for disciplinary investigation Baker dissented to Hudson's referral to JDDC, and she made transparency a focus of her successful runoff campaign against Wood to succeed Kemp, who did not run for reelection last year. Within days of taking the oath of office Jan. 1, Baker butted heads with the rest of the court over the scope of her authority as chief justice. Hudson was the only one of Baker's colleagues who did not block the chief justice's attempts to fire 10 judiciary employees and appoint three new judges to the judicial discipline body. The other five justices claimed Baker did not have the authority to make such unilateral decisions without consulting the rest of the court. Issues of judicial misconduct have not been limited to the Supreme Court this year. Former Monroe County district judge and deputy prosecutor T. David Carruth was sentenced in May to two years in federal prison for making false statements to the FBI. He had been admonished by the JDDC in 2018 for improper conduct in violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Griffin says colleague who contributed to his legal fund should not be barred from hearing his case
Democratic incumbent Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs and her Republican challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin. (Courtesy photos) Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin is opposing a request to bar a Republican colleague whose campaign fund contributed to his legal defense from considering his Supreme Court election lawsuit. Griffin, a Republican, wants to throw out more than 60,000 votes cast in last fall's election in an attempt to unseat incumbent Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs. Her 734-vote lead was confirmed by recounts, but the election remains undecided while Griffin's case moves through the courts. His case has reached the state Court of Appeals. Republican Judge Tom Murry was elected to a seat on the Appeals Court in November. Murry contributed $5,000 to Griffin's legal defense fund from a campaign account he'd set up for an Attorney General campaign. Murry announced a run for Attorney General before he switched to a Court of Appeals race. Last month, Riggs' lawyers filed a motion to have Murry recused from hearing the case. Murry's contribution appears to be directly related to Griffin's court case, the Riggs' brief said. 'By contributing to that legal defense fund, Judge Murry's campaign committee provided material aid to Judge Griffin and showed a preference for Judge Griffin in this specific dispute,' the brief said. Murry did not return a Tuesday phone call seeking comment. Republicans hold a 12-3 majority on the court. Griffin has recused himself. The Appeals Court usually hears cases in teams of three. Griffin's lawyers said in a court brief that it was premature to ask that Murry be prevented from hearing the case because members of the three-judge panel haven't been announced, and 'there is currently no reason to believe that Judge Murry will be on the panel.' The Judicial Code of Conduct does not require recusal for making political contributions and it's unclear whether a contribution from a campaign fund to a legal defense fund is prohibited, the Griffin brief said. Riggs' lawyers made the request to bar Murry from hearing the case on the same day they asked the full Appeals Court to hear it. Having the first hearing before the full Appeals Court is unusual. Riggs' brief said an initial full-court hearing is warranted because the case involves 'an issue of exceptional importance that must be concisely stated,' and having the full-court hearing would be quicker. Parties can ask for a full-court hearing after a loss before a three-judge panel. Griffin's lawyers opposed the request to have the entire court hear the case at the outset, saying it would invite 'procedural chaos.' With Griffin recused, a full-court might result in a deadlocked 7-7 decision, and it's not clear what would happen after that, Griffin's brief says. Griffin is challenging three sets of ballots. He claims more than 60,000 votes were cast by people who are not legally registered because they did not include partial Social Security numbers or driver's license numbers on their registration applications. In the last few months, voters Griffin is challenging have come forward to declare they did include the information, but it was not attached to electronic voter rolls due to data mismatches or typos. Griffin is challenging about 5,500 military and overseas absentee voters because they did not include photo ID with their ballots. The state Board of Elections does not require these voters to submit photo ID. His is also challenging voters who have never lived in North Carolina but are connected to the state through their parents. Last year, the state Appeals Court rejected an appeal from the NC GOP and the Republican National Committee, which wanted elections officials to set aside ballots from some overseas voters and reject some of their registration forms. Republicans claimed that the Board of Elections allowed people living overseas who are ineligible to vote to register.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Griffin says colleague who contributed to his legal fund should not be barred from hearing his case
Democratic incumbent Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs and her Republican challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin. (Courtesy photos) Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin is opposing a request to bar a Republican colleague whose campaign fund contributed to his legal defense from considering his Supreme Court election lawsuit. Griffin, a Republican, wants to throw out more than 60,000 votes cast in last fall's election in an attempt to unseat incumbent Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs. Her 734-vote lead was confirmed by recounts, but the election remains undecided while Griffin's case moves through the courts. His case has reached the state Court of Appeals. Republican Judge Tom Murry was elected to a seat on the Appeals Court in November. Murry contributed $5,000 to Griffin's legal defense fund from a campaign account he'd set up for an Attorney General campaign. Murry announced a run for Attorney General before he switched to a Court of Appeals race. Last month, Riggs' lawyers filed a motion to have Murry recused from hearing the case. Murry's contribution appears to be directly related to Griffin's court case, the Riggs' brief said. 'By contributing to that legal defense fund, Judge Murry's campaign committee provided material aid to Judge Griffin and showed a preference for Judge Griffin in this specific dispute,' the brief said. Murry did not return a Tuesday phone call seeking comment. Republicans hold a 12-3 majority on the court. Griffin has recused himself. The Appeals Court usually hears cases in teams of three. Griffin's lawyers said in a court brief that it was premature to ask that Murry be prevented from hearing the case because members of the three-judge panel haven't been announced, and 'there is currently no reason to believe that Judge Murry will be on the panel.' The Judicial Code of Conduct does not require recusal for making political contributions and it's unclear whether a contribution from a campaign fund to a legal defense fund is prohibited, the Griffin brief said. Riggs' lawyers made the request to bar Murry from hearing the case on the same day they asked the full Appeals Court to hear it. Having the first hearing before the full Appeals Court is unusual. Riggs' brief said an initial full-court hearing is warranted because the case involves 'an issue of exceptional importance that must be concisely stated,' and having the full-court hearing would be quicker. Parties can ask for a full-court hearing after a loss before a three-judge panel. Griffin's lawyers opposed the request to have the entire court hear the case at the outset, saying it would invite 'procedural chaos.' With Griffin recused, a full-court might result in a deadlocked 7-7 decision, and it's not clear what would happen after that, Griffin's brief says. Griffin is challenging three sets of ballots. He claims more than 60,000 votes were cast by people who are not legally registered because they did not include partial Social Security numbers or driver's license numbers on their registration applications. In the last few months, voters Griffin is challenging have come forward to declare they did include the information, but it was not attached to electronic voter rolls due to data mismatches or typos. Griffin is challenging about 5,500 military and overseas absentee voters because they did not include photo ID with their ballots. The state Board of Elections does not require these voters to submit photo ID. His is also challenging voters who have never lived in North Carolina but are connected to the state through their parents. Last year, the state Appeals Court rejected an appeal from the NC GOP and the Republican National Committee, which wanted elections officials to set aside ballots from some overseas voters and reject some of their registration forms. Republicans claimed that the Board of Elections allowed people living overseas who are ineligible to vote to register.
