In re Marshall, 8 N.Y.3d 742 (2007)

A judge may be removed from office for engaging in improper ex parte communications with defendants and subsequently providing false testimony to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding those communications.

Summary

This case concerns the removal of a Town Justice, Jean Marshall, for engaging in improper ex parte communications with defendants in building code violation cases and subsequently lying about these communications to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission brought two charges against Marshall: improper communication and dismissal of cases without proper notice, and false testimony and alteration of court records. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commission’s findings that Marshall violated the standards of integrity required of the judiciary and upheld her removal from office, emphasizing the seriousness of her lack of candor and the existence of objective proof contradicting her statements.

Facts

Jean Marshall, Justice of the Cuyler Town Court, engaged in ex parte conversations with three defendants in building code violation cases, informing them they did not need to appear in court as scheduled. At the scheduled court session, Marshall told the town’s attorney and code enforcement officer that the cases would be adjourned to January 26, 2004, and noted the date in her calendar. Prior to that date, Marshall dismissed the cases sua sponte without notifying the town’s attorney or code enforcement officer. When questioned by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Marshall falsely testified that she had not adjourned the cases and altered her court calendar to conceal the original adjourned date.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct filed a formal complaint against Justice Marshall. A Referee was designated to hear the case and reported that Marshall failed to properly perform her duties regarding the ex parte communications but found insufficient evidence to support the false testimony and record alteration charges. The Commission upheld both charges and determined Marshall should be removed. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Commission’s determination.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Justice Marshall engaged in judicial misconduct by engaging in improper ex parte communications and dismissing cases without proper notice to the prosecutor?

2. Whether Justice Marshall engaged in further judicial misconduct by providing false testimony to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and altering court records to conceal her actions?

Holding

1. Yes, because Justice Marshall failed to properly perform the duties of her office by engaging in ex parte communications and dismissing cases without providing the prosecutor notice or an opportunity to be heard.

2. Yes, because Justice Marshall provided patently false explanations to the Commission despite contrary objective proof, and attempted to conceal her misconduct by altering official court records.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that neither the Commission nor the Court is bound by the Referee’s findings, possessing the authority to review findings of fact and determine the appropriate sanction in judicial misconduct cases. The Court found that the record clearly demonstrated Marshall’s improper ex parte communications and subsequent dismissal of cases without proper notification. Critically, the Court highlighted Marshall’s false testimony to the Commission and her alteration of the court calendar as egregious violations of judicial ethics. The court quoted Matter of Kiley, 74 N.Y.2d 364, 371, 370 (1989), stating that while caution should be exercised in using a judge’s lack of candor as an aggravating circumstance, removal is appropriate “where the Judge who was to be sanctioned gave patently false explanations to the Commission despite contrary objective proof.” The Court concluded that Marshall’s actions violated the high standards of integrity required of the judiciary, warranting her removal from office. The Court emphasized the seriousness of providing false explanations to the Commission when confronted with objective proof of misconduct.