Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 95-412

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Santino

    257 So. 3d 25 (Fla. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Removing judge from office for violating rule 4-8.2(b) and Canon 7 during campaign for office

    Even where a judge has an outstanding record, removal is the appropriate sanction for a judge whose misconduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office or strikes at the heart of judicial integrity. See, e.g. , In re Graziano , 696 So.2d 744, 749 (Fla. 1997) ; In re Johnson , 692 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 1997) ("We cannot dispute Judge Johnson's otherwise unblemished judicial record."); In re Garrett , 613 So.2d 463, 464 (Fla. 1993) (removing Judge Garrett based on

  2. In re Henson

    913 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2005)   Cited 16 times
    Finding removal appropriate because “the respect of the public [is] essential to [the judiciary's] mission as the third branch of government.”

    We have previously removed judges despite strong character evidence or an unblemished judicial record when their misconduct was fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office or struck at the heart of judicial integrity. See, e.g., Graziano, 696 So.2d at 749; In re Johnson, 692 So.2d 168, 173 (Fla. 1997); LaMotte, 341 So.2d at 517-19. Next, Judge Henson argues that removal from office is too severe a sanction for the single instance of misconduct he has acknowledged in Count I.

  3. In re Inquiry Concerning 14-255 re John C. Murphy

    181 So. 3d 1169 (Fla. 2015)   Cited 7 times
    Explaining that the high ethical standard to which judges are held safeguards the public's confidence in the judiciary

    , In re Graziano, 696 So.2d 744, 749 (Fla.1997); In re Johnson, 692 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla.1997) (“We cannot dispute Judge Johnson's otherwise unblemished judicial record.”); In re Garrett, 613 So.2d 463, 464 (Fla.1993) (removing Judge Garrett based on one incident of petit theft despite an “unblemished career of public service”).

  4. In re Coffey's Case

    157 N.H. 156 (N.H. 2008)   Cited 22 times
    Recognizing that intent may be proven through sufficient circumstantial evidence

    onymous phone calls and sending “vulgar unsigned letters, one of which was accompanied by a used condom”), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1027 (1996); (3) engaged in a pattern of conduct on the bench that is a gross abuse of the power attendant to the position, seeMatter of Pekarski, 639 A.2d 759, 761-63 (Pa. 1994) (removing a judge for failing to recuse herself from approximately thirty-three matters involving family friends and, in addition, accepting money from a party); Matter of McKinney, 478 S.E.2d 51, 52, 54 (S.C. 1996) (removing a judge for issuing an arrest warrant at the behest of his daughter and dropping the charges only after the defendant had paid his daughter $ 500); or (4) engaged in a knowing, persistent course of misconduct, seeFletcher v. Com'n on Jud. Performance, 968 P.2d 958, 991 (Cal. 1998) (removing a judge from office for, among other things, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice on sixteen different occasions); Inquiry Concerning Johnson, 692 So. 2d 168, 172-73 (Fla. 1997) (removing a judge who, despite being previously warned about similar conduct, ordered her clerk to back-date over forty cases in order to appear more efficient under judicial performance metrics). We have not found, and neither party has provided, any case law from other jurisdictions that addresses judicial misconduct similar to that currently before us. Faced with this lack of helpful authority, examination of the attorney misconduct cases can provide some insight.

  5. State v. Vincent Scibana

    726 So. 2d 793 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 7 times

    According to the opinion removing the judge from office, she did this in about fifty cases. In re Johnson, Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 692 So.2d 168 (Fla. 1997). In the three cases before us the state filed motions to correct illegal sentence, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), seeking to impose a new six month license suspension in each case.