59 N.Y.2d 870 (1983)
A judge’s failure to advise defendants of their rights, coercion of guilty pleas, predisposition toward the prosecution, and disregard for record-keeping requirements constitute judicial misconduct warranting removal from office.
Summary
This case involves a Justice of the Peru Town Court, Paul L. McGee, who was removed from office by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s determination, finding that McGee routinely failed to advise defendants of their constitutional and statutory rights, coerced guilty pleas, showed a predisposition toward the prosecution, and disregarded statutory record-keeping requirements. The court concluded that McGee abused the power of his office in a manner that brought disrepute to the judiciary and damaged public confidence, justifying his removal.
Facts
From February 1979 through January 1981, Justice McGee consistently failed to inform defendants appearing before him of their constitutional and statutory rights, including the right to counsel. He sometimes discouraged defendants from seeking legal advice. Defendants were often found guilty and sentenced without being given the opportunity to plead not guilty or stand trial. In one instance, McGee issued a warrant for a woman who stopped payment on a check used to pay a previous fine, immediately pronouncing her guilty without informing her of the charge or her right to counsel. McGee admitted to convicting her based solely on the stopped payment.
Procedural History
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated and directed that Justice McGee be removed from office. McGee appealed this determination to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s determination to remove Justice McGee from office was proper, given evidence of his failure to advise defendants of their rights, coercion of guilty pleas, predisposition toward the prosecution, and disregard for record-keeping requirements.
Holding
Yes, because the record clearly established the propriety of the Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, demonstrating that Justice McGee abused the power of his office, brought disrepute to the judiciary, and irredeemably damaged public confidence, warranting removal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals accepted the Commission’s findings that McGee routinely failed to advise defendants of their constitutional rights, sometimes even discouraging them from seeking legal counsel. The court highlighted an instance where McGee stated a woman “had to be guilty” because “she had the goods on her,” and another where he convicted a woman of a “bad check” charge simply because she stopped payment. The court also noted McGee’s admission that in over eleven years on the bench, only one case had gone to trial, indicating a pattern of coerced guilty pleas and a predisposition toward the prosecution, often after improper ex parte communications with arresting officers. McGee also admitted to disregarding statutory record-keeping requirements. The court stated that the petitioner had “abused the power of his office in a manner that has brought disrepute to the judiciary and has irredeemably damaged public confidence in the integrity of his court. Such a breach of the public trust warrants removal.” The court emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust in the integrity of the judicial system, and found that McGee’s actions constituted a sufficient breach to justify removal from office. This case serves as a clear example of conduct that violates judicial ethics and undermines the fairness of the legal process.