96 N.Y.2d 199 (2001)

Judges must adhere to the highest standards of conduct, and engaging in racial epithets, ethnic slurs, attempts to influence dispositions, intemperate behavior, and false testimony warrants removal from office.

Summary

Judge LaBuda faced review by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which sustained four of seven misconduct charges and removed him from office. The charges included making derogatory racial remarks about a crime victim, displaying intemperate behavior and pressuring a prosecutor for personal convenience, making disparaging remarks about Italian-Americans, and testifying with reckless disregard for the truth. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s determination, finding that the judge’s cumulative misconduct undermined the integrity of the judiciary and warranted removal, despite his prior unblemished record.

Facts

The case involved several incidents of alleged misconduct by Judge LaBuda:
1. While discussing a murder case at a charity event, the judge made a derogatory racial remark about the victim to pressure a prosecutor into offering a plea deal.
2. During jury deliberations in a rape case, the judge displayed intemperate behavior, used profanity, and pressured the prosecutor to offer a plea for his personal convenience.
3. The judge made disparaging remarks about Italian-Americans during a conversation with a District Attorney.
4. The judge provided false testimony as a character witness in a criminal trial.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated the allegations against Judge LaBuda. A Referee found against the judge on six of the seven charges after a hearing. The Commission sustained the Referee’s findings on four charges (I, II, IV, and VII) and determined that the judge should be removed from office. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Commission’s determination de novo.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Commission on Judicial Conduct met its burden of proving that Judge LaBuda engaged in judicial misconduct.
2. Whether the sanction of removal from office was excessive, given the judge’s prior unblemished record.

Holding

1. Yes, because the Commission’s determination was supported by a preponderance of the evidence regarding the judge’s racial and ethnic slurs, attempts to influence dispositions, intemperate behavior, and false testimony.
2. No, because the judge’s cumulative misconduct undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and removal was an appropriate sanction.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that judges must be held to a higher standard of conduct than the public at large. The court found that Judge LaBuda’s derogatory racial remark about the crime victim, his disparaging comments about Italian-Americans, his intemperate behavior and pressure on the prosecutor, and his false testimony demonstrated a pattern of misconduct that warranted removal from office. The court stated, “These words, as well as the context in which they were uttered, are indefensible. Petitioner’s racially charged assessment of the case not only devalued the victim’s life but also cast doubt on the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and, by itself, puts into question petitioner’s fitness to hold judicial office.” The court rejected the judge’s attempts to rationalize his behavior, deferring to the Referee’s firsthand assessment of his responses. The Court further reasoned, “the ‘harm inured when [petitioner] indicated he would use his judicial powers to satisfy a personal [interest], a classic instance in which ‘an appearance of such impropriety is no less to be condemned than is the impropriety itself.’” The court concluded that the cumulative effect of the judge’s misconduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary, justifying the sanction of removal, stating, “Petitioner’s judicial record cannot excuse racial epithets and ethnic slurs in the official and quasi-official context in which they were uttered, attempts to influence dispositions, intemperate behavior and false testimony.”