Matter of Sardino v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 58 N.Y.2d 286 (1983)
A judge’s consistent disregard of judicial obligations, abuse of power, and displays of bias, even if not universally practiced, demonstrates unfitness for judicial office warranting removal.
Summary
Judge Sardino sought review of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s determination that he be removed from office. The Commission found that Judge Sardino engaged in a pattern of injudicious behavior demonstrating unfitness to remain a judge. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s determination, finding ample evidence of consistent disregard of judicial obligations, abuse of judicial power, and intemperate displays of bias. The court emphasized that impartiality is indispensable for a judge and that the judge’s actions created the impression of bias, warranting removal.
Facts
Judge Sardino, a Judge of the Syracuse City Court, was charged with misconduct based on his actions and statements in over 60 cases since 1979. The charges included failing to inform defendants of their right to counsel, arbitrarily setting bail without regard to statutory standards, questioning defendants about the crimes charged, and making dehumanizing remarks. He admitted to deliberately disregarding his statutory obligations regarding informing defendants of their rights. The Commission sustained over 20 charges.
Procedural History
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that Judge Sardino should be removed from office. Judge Sardino then commenced a proceeding in the Court of Appeals, pursuant to the New York State Constitution, seeking review of the Commission’s findings of fact, legal rulings, and determination of removal.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence supported the Commission’s determination that Judge Sardino’s conduct demonstrated a pattern of injudicious behavior rendering him unfit to remain in judicial office, warranting removal.
Holding
Yes, because Judge Sardino’s consistent disregard of judicial obligations, abuse of judicial power, and intemperate displays of bias in numerous cases demonstrated a shocking disregard for due process and rendered him unfit to remain in judicial office.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the indispensable requirement of impartiality for a judicial officer, stating that judges must conduct themselves in a way that maintains public confidence in their impartiality. The court found that Judge Sardino’s actions and statements, even if not actually motivated by bias, created the impression of bias against defendants. The court rejected Judge Sardino’s argument that his entire judicial career should be considered, stating that even if his misconduct was not consistent, erratic behavior is inconsistent with a judge’s role.
The court also rejected Judge Sardino’s argument that the Commission erred in refusing to allow him to present evidence that his practices were consistent with those of other judges, stating that each judge is personally obligated to act in accordance with the law and standards of judicial conduct, and that the dereliction of others is no defense. The court quoted the Commission’s determination: “The totality of [petitioner’s] conduct shows a shocking disregard for due process of law. [He] has grossly abused judicial power and process, routinely denied defendants their rights, ignored the mandates of law, disregarded the jurisdiction of other courts, disparaged attorneys, demeaned defendants and otherwise acted in a manner bringing disrepute to the courts and the judiciary. [He] has so distorted his role as a judge as to render him unfit to remain in judicial office.”