|
|
|
|
WELCOME!
|
|
 |
Where applicable, the following public cases may include Commission decisions, statements of charges, answers to statements of charges, exhibits, and/or supreme court decisions. These documents are available for download as Portable Document Format (PDF) files.*
In re the Honorable John Darrah
A King County Superior Court judge
was charged with having violated Canons 2(A) and 7(A)(4) when (1) after
having received the verdict of the jury in a criminal case involving
the execution style killing of a cab driver but before the jury was
dismissed, he addressed the jury in open court in the presence of members
of the news media, speaking out against the easy availability of hand
guns in society such as occurred in the case just concluded, exhorting
the jurors to contact their legislators concerning the subject, and
urging a change in the law regarding the ownership and possession of
handguns; (2) he made similar remarks to representatives of the news
media after the court session had concluded.
In re the Honorable Frederick J. Stoker
Pursuant to agreement, the Commission issued a public Letter of Admonishment to a judge for engaging in ex parte communication while presiding over a case and for contacting an Assistant City Attorney who was handling a case involving the judge's relative. The Commission found violations of Canons 2, 3(A)(4), and 3(C)(l)(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In re the Honorable Robert E. Miller
Pursuant to stipulation and agreement, the Commission admonished a judge of Waitsburg Municipal Court. The Commission found that on several occasions he did not comply with appropriate courtroom procedures contrary to Canons 3(A)(l) and 3(A)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Additionally, the judge agreed to resign from office. The agreement ended a proceeding in which the Commission charged that the judge: (1) demonstrated a pattern of conduct of making inappropriate remarks of a sexually explicit nature to persons in his courtroom; (2) failed to maintain a professional competence in the law, failed to determine the facts of a case before disposition, denied defendants the right to be heard or to trial, and otherwise committed procedural irregularities; (3) demonstrated a pattern of conduct of discussing pending cases with police officers ahead of trial and outside the presence of the individuals charged; and (4) failed to disqualify himself in a proceeding where he had personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding and in which the judge was the source of information for bringing the complaint against the defendant before him.
In re the Honorable Donald E. Priest
Pursuant to an agreement, the Commission issued a public letter of admonishment for a judge's failure to render a decision in a timely manner, and therefore failing to dispose promptly of the business of the court. The Commission found a violation of Canon 3(A)(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and issued a public letter of admonishment.
In re the Honorable Stephen E. Alexander
Pursuant to agreement, the Commission found a violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct where a judge communicated using court stationery with legislators urging their support of legislation on specific social issues which might cast doubt on the court’s impartiality. The Commission issued a public letter of reprimand.
In re the Honorable James P. Healy
Pursuant to agreement, the Commission issued a public Letter of Reprimand for a judge's delay in rendering decisions. The Commission found a violation of Canon 3(A)(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In re the Honorable August F. Hahn
Pursuant to stipulation and agreement,
the Commission admonished a judge who (1) on three occasions acted in
an injudicious manner in statements made in open court; (2) improperly
dismissed cases against criminal defendants in his court without giving
appropriate notice or opportunity to be heard to the governmental authority
bringing charges; and (3) sat as a judge in matters involving individuals
whom he had previously represented as an attorney in private practice.
The judge further agreed he would neither seek nor serve in any judicial
office.
In re the Honorable Arthur A. Blauvelt
Rejecting the recommendation of
the Commission, the Supreme Court refused to admonish an appointed,
part time municipal court judge for attending a local caucus and a county
caucus for the Democratic Party and being chosen as a delegate. The
Court concluded that, as a delegate controlling the proxy of party members,
the judge wielded influence at the party convention and acted as a leader
in a political party. The Court rejected the judge's argument that the
term "leader" in Canon 7 was unconstitutionally vague noting
that Canon 7(A)(1) prohibits attendance at political gatherings, the
Court stated it would be reasonable for a person of ordinary intelligence
to conclude that taking an additional, active role by standing for election
as a delegate is prohibited. The Court also held that Canon 7 applies
to appointed as well as elected judges. But the Court concluded that
no sanction was necessary. The Court noted that the challenged activities
took place during a single election, were limited to attendance at a
precinct caucus and a county convention, and were solely for the purpose
of participating in the selection of a presidential nominee.
|
|
|
* These files were saved in ".pdf" format. Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view them. If you don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, it is available for free from the Adobe web site. |
|
 |
|
|
Home | About the Commission | Disciplinary Function | Commission Activity | Governing Provisions | Filing a Complaint Discipline Database | Contact Us | Privacy Notice Information | Site map Copyright
© 2000-2001 Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct |
