As the Commonwealth notes, Appellant's claim is premised upon declining to accept the ruling of the Court of Judicial Discipline, which, following a trial, concluded that the allegations were not supported by credible evidence and so dismissed the complaint. See In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1998). Appellant eventually acknowledges that decision in a footnote, but then dismisses it because the clear and convincing standard of proof before the Court of Judicial Discipline is higher than that required for him to show judicial bias.
As the Commonwealth notes, Appellant's claim is premised upon declining to accept the ruling of the Court of Judicial Discipline, which, following a trial, concluded that the allegations were not supported by credible evidence and so dismissed the complaint. See In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1998). Appellant eventually acknowledges that decision in a footnote, but then dismisses it because the clear and convincing standard of proof before the Court of Judicial Discipline is higher than that required for him to show judicial bias.
Since the Constitution requires that "all actions of the court . . . shall require approval by a majority vote of the members of the court" the Panel's Findings of Fact have been reviewed and this Decision is rendered by the full Court. As we noted in In re Nakoski 742 A.2d 260, 263 (Pa.Ct. Jud.Disc. 1999) and In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113, 1117 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1998), this Court is constrained to accord special deference to the findings of a Panel for, as the judges who hear the witnesses testify and observe their demeanor, it is they who are best positioned to assess credibility. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has addressed this subject as follows:
Since the Constitution requires that "all actions of the court . . . shall require approval by a majority vote of the members of the court" the Panel's Findings of Fact have been reviewed and this Decision is rendered by the full Court. As we noted in In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113, 1117 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1998), this Court is constrained to accord special deference to the findings of a Panel for, as the ones who hear the witnesses testify and observe their demeanor, it is they who are best positioned to assess credibility. Moreover, in this case, there is very little dispute as to the facts, most being the subject of stipulations.
Previously, this Court relied upon character testimony and evidence as a basis to conclude that a charged event did not occur because the respondent judge presented evidence of his character such that it raised significant doubt in the collective mind of this Court that the charged event occurred. See, e.g., In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113, 1122-1123 (Pa.CtJud.Disc. 1998) (respondent judge presented compelling array of character witnesses to demonstrate reputation for evenhandedness in racial matters to demonstrate that alleged use of racial slur by judge did not occur) (emphasis added).
Previously, this Court relied upon character testimony and evidence as a basis to conclude that a charged event did not occur because the respondent judge presented evidence of his character such that it raised significant doubt in the collective mind of this Court that the charged event occurred. See, e.g., In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113, 1122-1123 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1998) (respondent judge presented compelling array of character witnesses to demonstrate reputation for evenhandedness in racial matters to demonstrate that alleged use of racial slur by judge did not occur) (emphasis added)
Since the Constitution requires that "all actions of the court . . . shall require approval by a majority vote of the members of the court" the Panel's Findings of Fact have been reviewed and this Decision is rendered by the full Court. As we noted in In re Nakoski, 742 A.2d 260, 263 (Pa.Ct. Jud.Disc.1999) and In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113, 1117 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1998), this Court is constrained to accord special deference to the findings of a Panel for, as the judges who hear the witnesses testify and observe their demeanor, it is they who are best positioned to assess credibility. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has addressed this subject as follows:
Since the Constitution requires that "all actions of the court ... shall require approval by a majority vote of the members of the court" the Panel's Findings of Fact have been reviewed and this Decision is rendered by the full Court. As we noted in In re Nakoski, 742 A.2d 260, 263 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1999) and In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113, 1117 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1998), this Court is constrained to accord special deference to the findings of a Panel for, as the ones who hear the witnesses testify and observe their demeanor, it is they who are best positioned to assess credibility. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has addressed this subject as follows:
As we noted in In re Nakoski, 742 A.2d 260, 263 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1999) and In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113, 1117 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 1998), this Court is constrained to accord special deference to the findings of a Panel for, as the ones who hear the witnesses testify and observe their demeanor, it is they who are best positioned to assess credibility. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has addressed this subject as follows:
Since the Constitution requires that "all actions of the court ... shall require approval by a majority vote of the members of the court" the Panel's Findings of Fact have been reviewed and this Decision is rendered by the full Court. As we noted in In re Manning, 711 A.2d 1113, 1117 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 1998), this Court is constrained to accord special deference to the findings of a Panel for, as the ones who hear the witnesses testify and observe their demeanor, it is they who are best positioned to assess credibility. Moreover, in this case, there is very little dispute as to the facts, most being the subject of stipulations.