State of Washington Seal

State of Washington

Search Result


Case Summary for Complaint # 1137


Name: John P. Junke

Title: Judge

Court: Walla Walla Municipal Court

County: Walla Walla

Discipline: Reprimand

Method of Resolution: Decision

Discipline Date: 06/04/1993

Canons Violated:1, 2(A), 3(A)(1), 3(A)(3), 3(A)(4)

Summary: The Commission reprimanded a judge who 1) threatened to cancel the public defender contract of one of the attorneys who held the contract and had filed several affidavits of prejudice against the judge; 2) after a deputy prosecuting attorney presented an agreement with defense counsel that would dispose of the charges in a case, arrested the deputy prosecuting attorney and held him in contempt for refusing to have a state trooper arrested who was a key witness in the case; 3) visited a defendant in jail after the defendant was arrested on a failure to appear arising out of a traffic ticket; after the defendant told him the ticket was not his but his brother's, released the defendant without setting a court appearance date; and instructed one of his staff to talk to the arresting officer about the identity of the person who received the ticket; and 4) dismissed sua sponte a DWI charge against a defendant who had had knee surgery and could not get into the courtroom when there were other reasonable alternatives for taking the plea; in a memo regarding the lack of access to the court for disabled litigants, the judge had suggested he would not get anywhere with the county commissioners until a highly publicized case got dismissed or someone fell down the stairs. In addition to the reprimand, the Commission ordered the judge to 1) take no retaliation, directly or indirectly, against witnesses or other persons who cooperated with the Commission in its investigation and proceeding; and 2) at his expense, attend, participate, and complete a course on ethics for judges at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, and, before June 1, 1994, attend another National Judicial College course of similar duration that is offered to new judges, to be selected by the judge and approved by the Commission. Noting that the evidence did not show that a single defendant suffered unjust or unfair treatment in the judge's court, one member of the Commission dissented from the sanction and argued that admonishment (which the hearing panel had recommended) was more than sufficient sanction for what seemed to be no more than an intramural squabble among members of a closed system.

Case Documents Available: