Naruecha Genthasong | moment | getty images
A federal judge has been disciplined for having sex in his chamber with a high-ranking law enforcement officer within earshot of staff, attending a partisan political event and lying to senior judges investigating the claims, a disciplinary committee revealed.
But the identities of the judges and the district court in which they sit are being kept private Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Council of the United States In its Decision issued on FridayWhich was first reported by Reuters.
The seven-judge committee upheld findings of judicial misconduct issued in February by the Judicial Council. 11th circuitThe federal appeals circuit that handles cases originating from the U.S. District Courts in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
The 11th Circuit imposed sanctions on the judge who agreed with them, including ordering that he write apology letters to six former law clerks who were interviewed in the investigation; The foregoing service as chief judge in the federal district in which he sits; and refraining from sitting on any judicial conference committee.
A spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declined to comment on the decision affirming those sanctions, and withheld the name of the judge.
According to the decision, Chief Circuit Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit was made aware of a complaint against the unnamed judge based on a memorandum received by the chief judge in the district in September.
“The information in the Chief District Judge’s memorandum came from one of the subject judge’s law clerks,” the decision said.
“The law clerk reported that, on several occasions, the subject judge engaged in sexual activity with a uniformed law enforcement officer within earshot of the judge’s staff during work hours,” the decision said.
“The law clerk also reported that the subject judge failed to advise the law clerks and edit their work, displayed obvious anger toward the law clerks, including yelling and cursing, and, on one occasion, told staff that the judge had ‘too many martinis the night before’ at an event for the district attorney.”
The judgment said that after the judge was informed of the subject of the complaint by the Chief Circuit Judge, he submitted a response denying the allegations, calling them “outrageous” and “baseless”.
A special committee was then appointed to investigate the allegations, which included interviewing six former clerks of the judge and reviewing documents, security footage and visitor logins.
The decision said, “This includes conducting tests in a chamber with a similar layout to determine whether a law clerk sitting outside the chamber can hear sounds from within; arranging for forensic testing of a sofa pillow in the subject judge’s chamber.”
In December the special committee issued a report finding that the judge had “engaged in judicial misconduct by engaging in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking law enforcement official and having sex in the judge’s chambers during business hours.”
The committee also found that the judge had engaged in misconduct by attending a campaign event for a district attorney and making false statements to Chief Circuit Judge Pryor and the Chief Court District Judge “that were material to the investigation.”
“In particular, the subject judge denied having engaged in sexual intercourse in court and denied knowing what the allegation related to,” the judgment said.
The committee found that the affair lasted for about two years and involved a high-ranking officer of the police department.
“On several occasions, during business hours, the subject judge and police officers got into altercations
Intercourse within earshot of the subject judge’s staff in the subject judge’s chamber, the judgment said.
“In addition, during the period in which the case was pending, the police department was involved in a number of criminal and civil cases ongoing in the district,” according to the decision.
The judge did not disclose the case to any other judge, staff, or litigant party.
“The subject judge could have been appointed to handle a case in which the officer or the police department had an interest, which could have resulted in a conflict or situation of conflict,” the decision said.
“Although the Special Committee found no example of the subject judge presiding over a case in which the officer or police department was a party or a witness, the Special Committee found that this was due to ‘incident’ rather than efforts by the subject judge to minimize any potential conflict.”
The decision said the case left the judge “vulnerable to potential extortion or blackmail,” violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, “demonstrated a gross lack of judgment,” and created an “uncomfortable and disturbing” environment for his staff.
The decision also stated that the special committee recommending sanctions against the judge “ultimately decided not to recommend a more serious sanction because: (1) the subject judge corrected the false statements and later came clean with the special committee; (2) it was unlikely that the subject judge would engage in similar misconduct in the future, because the subject judge has severed ties with the law enforcement officer and has committed to avoiding partisan political incidents in the future; and (3) The subject judge had otherwise provided exemplary service to the court.”
“The Special Committee reported that although it was ‘deeply disturbed’ by the conduct of the subject judge, the subject judge ‘showed a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service to the judiciary,'” the judgment said.