 |
| DENVER, CO - JANUARY 13: Colorado Supreme Court Justice Brian Boatright stands at the podium in the Senate as he swears in senators at the start of the first legislative day of the 73rd General Assembly at the Colorado State Capitol on January 13, 2021 in Denver, Colorado. (Photo By Kathryn Scott) |
Colorado's Commission on Judicial Discipline initiated six corrective actions against judges in 2020 — the same number as the prior year — ranging from mild concerns about the handling of cases to illegal behavior that resulted in a Supreme Court censure.
The commission released its annual report, which includes specific details about judges who received public discipline, and only general, non-identifying information about circumstances involving private sanctions. The majority of complaints about judges were for issues the commission could not resolve because they pertained to evidence, court procedures or law, and not official misconduct.
Of the two cases meriting public discipline, the first involved former Weld County District Court Judge Ryan L. Kamada, who the state Supreme Court censured in December for obstructing a federal drug investigation and improperly disclosing information about cases. In one instance, Kamada texted friends that a woman in a divorce proceeding would be "free game tomorrow night." Last month, a federal court sentenced Kamada to little over a year in prison for his interference in the drug operation.
In the other instance of public discipline, the commission reported that it commenced formal proceedings against former Baca County Court Judge Debra M. Gunkel in December. She had violated the terms of her deferred sentence for impaired driving by picking up a second DUI conviction.
The report revealed that the state Supreme Court initially rejected a proposed resolution to Gunkel's disciplinary case, without noting what the proposal entailed. But her case was not resolved until May of this year, when the justices accepted her resignation and censured Gunkel.
There were three instances of private discipline meted out to unnamed judges. The commission reprimanded one judge and placed them into a counseling program after the judge exhibited a "pattern of personal conduct with staff in the close quarters of the courthouse [that] adversely affected the work environment."
In another circumstance, a judge delayed issuing a decision for nearly three years in a complex case that involved a 19-day trial with 46 witnesses.
"The Commission determined that the intensity and complexity of the litigation were the primary cause of the delay, but that the judge, nonetheless, should have resolved it more promptly," explained the disciplinary report.
Finally, the commission twice reprimanded a judge for their "insensitivity in using racial and ethnic terms" and problems handling administrative tasks.
The commission dismissed two cases that did not amount to provable violations, but nonetheless registered its concerns. The commission encouraged one judge to seek the help of a retired senior judge in managing their docket when, as in the case at hand, the judge only was able to issue two orders in 20 months in a parental dispute. Frequent legal motions, changes in court staff and the COVID-19 pandemic were the sources of the delays.
Another judge received encouragement to better explain the nature of their communications with a magistrate, after the father in another parental dispute complained about improper discussion between the district court judge and a magistrate who also happened to be a witness on behalf of the mother.
In total, the commission received 199 requests for evaluation of judicial conduct in 2020. The executive director ultimately dismissed 190 of those because they involved the conduct of non-judges, did not reasonably relate to judicial misconduct or had no provable violation.
"The disruption of the judicial branch’s management of hearings and trials during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted several complaints about delays and the occasional difficulties in connecting with remote hearings by video and in managing the proceedings," the report noted. "These situations were unavoidable and did not involve judicial misconduct."
In 2019, there were 221 requests for evaluation, of which the executive director dismissed 211. That year, discipline included two public actions, two instances of private discipline and two cases being dismissed while noting the concerns of the commission.
The judicial discipline process, which by and large takes place out of the public's eye, came under scrutiny earlier this year after The Gazette and The Denver Post reported that the Judicial Department awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to a former employee allegedly in exchange for her silence about instances of misconduct within the judiciary. A committee of legislators and executive branch officials is charged with selecting a firm to perform an independent investigation.
The Commission on Judicial Discipline dates to 1967 and monitors the judiciary's compliance with the canons of judicial ethics. Pursuant to the state constitution, the process remains confidential until the commission files a disciplinary recommendation to the Supreme Court at the end of formal proceedings.
"A significant number of the complaints made in the judicial discipline process are in fact somebody's effort to call attention to a case that turned out in a way they didn’t agree with. Those cases have to be winnowed out," former Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis told Colorado Politics in February. She added that a person might turn to human resources if they want a judge's problematic behavior to stop, while the judicial discipline process may be best reserved for "conduct that is reprehensible and which leads the complainant to want to see that person disciplined or taken off the bench."
In addition to dismissing the charges and doling out public or private reprimands, discipline could also include removing a judge from office, suspension without pay, or measures "necessary to curtail or eliminate the judge's misconduct."
Besides Gunkel, the only judge subject to
public censure during 2021 so far is former Arapahoe County District
Court Judge Natalie T. Chase, who offered her resignation in April
after admitting to using the N-word in front of court employees and
ordering her staff to perform her personal tasks at work, among other
incidents.
No comments:
Post a Comment