Panel recommends censure, unpaid suspension for PG judge who refused training

By Madeleine O'Neill

Judge April T. Ademiluyi

A judicial discipline panel has recommended a censure and at least two months of unpaid suspension against a Prince George’s County circuit judge accused of repeatedly refusing training, showing bias toward criminal defendants and antagonizing staff and colleagues.

The Commission on Judicial Disabilities agreed unanimously that the judge, April T. Ademiluyi, committed sanctionable conduct, according to a 60-page report issued last week. The commission’s findings and recommended sanctions have been forwarded to the Maryland Supreme Court for expedited consideration.

The recommendation includes a censure and six months’ suspension without pay, though four months of that time would be suspended if Ademiuyi successfully completes a one-year probationary period.

During the probation, Ademiluyi would be required to cooperate with a mentor judge and a probation monitor, both of whom would be required to provide monthly updates to the commission. Ademiluyi would also be required to submit to a health care evaluation “for a complete emotional, behavioral and prosocial assessment,” the commission recommended.

The findings arrived after a lengthy and emotional hearing in December, where seven current or former judges testified at the request of the commission’s investigative counsel, according to the report. Ademiluyi also testified on her own behalf, though the commission found that her assertions were contradicted by documentary evidence at times.

The allegations against Ademiluyi are wide-ranging and center on her refusal to participate in new judge’s training when she joined the Prince George’s County Circuit Court in late 2020. Ademiluyi had no experience handling criminal or civil jury trials and was supposed to train with other judges to learn how to do the job before taking on cases of her own.

Instead, investigative counsel charged, Ademiluyi failed to show up at the courthouse when assigned, was often late to proceedings, and pushed back against her training requirements, including challenging supervisory judges’ authority to oversee her.

The commission found that Ademiluyi refused to cooperate with her training judges, which extended her training far beyond the intended time frame. The commission issued a Letter of Cautionary Advice to January 2022 warning Ademiluyi to comply with “reasonable directives” and conduct the dockets she was assigned.

Ademiluyi continued to challenge the training requirements, emailing a training judge in March 2022, “I don’t need any more judges observing and giving me feedback, while I preside over a jury trial.”

Later that month, Ademiluyi emailed the training judge and the county’s administrative judge, “I am not interested in your advice throughout the course of the proceeding or anytime concerning any case.”

The commission also found that Ademiluyi made improper statements when she ran for a seat on the bench. Ademiluyi campaigned to become a judge on a platform that she was a sexual assault survivor who would give a voice to women and the Me Too movement.

“Women need more than a movement,” Ademiluyi said in one campaign ad. “People need more than protests in the streets. We need power, a judge’s power.”

The commission found that Ademiluyi’s campaign comments suggested Ademiluyi would not be impartial as a judge

“These statements … could reasonably be perceived as promising to help victims of, and those alleging that they are victims of, sexual violence, that (Ademiluyi) may not be impartial in sexual violence cases, and that she would use her power as a judge to ‘make it work for all of us,’ i.e. make particular results happen for alleged victims of sexual violence,” the commission wrote.

The allegations of bias followed Ademiluyi once she took the bench. In her first criminal jury trial, involving a defendant accused of rape, Ademiluyi undertook her own investigation into technology introduced at the case — despite receiving no request to do so from the defense or prosecution.

Ademiluyi then took the unusual step of putting the trial on hold in order to hold an evidentiary hearing, again without any request from the parties. She decided to revisit an earlier ruling on the evidence while her training judge, who was sitting in on the trial to offer guidance, was absent from the courtroom, according to the commission’s report.

“Taken together, these decisions are those of a judge bound to reach the result she wanted, not merely one legal ruling, whether correct or not,” the commission wrote.

The commission also found that Ademiluyi demeaned members of her staff and other jurists. Two former court staffers who worked for Ademiluyi both testified in December that they sought medical attention for stress and anxiety as a result of working with the judge, according to the report.

Ademiluyi also unilaterally cancelled meetings with the county’s administrative judge, emailing ““I don’t look forward to meeting you or communicating with you at anytime …” and, “You are extremely untrustworthy and disrespectful.”

In an exchange with a training judge who warned that criminal jury selection could be “difficult and complex,” Ademiluyi responded, “It’s not that complicated but everyone makes mistakes. Is there an issue you struggle with that I should pay close attention to?”

Investigative counsel recommended that Ademiluyi receive a censure from the Maryland Supreme Court and a three-month suspension.

The commission concluded that Ademiluyi’s conduct “raised a substantial question” about her fitness for office and recommended the six-month unpaid suspension with four months suspended.

Ademiluyi’s lawyer in the disciplinary case, Craig Brodsky, declined to comment Monday.

In court papers, Ademiluyi has denied that her behavior was sanctionable and portrayed herself as a whistleblower who faced retaliation after filing complaints against fellow judges. She argued that she faced pushback because she ran as an outsider and unseated a popular incumbent when she won a seat on the bench.

She is also facing a second set of disciplinary charges that accuse her of  “repeated, non-consensual harassing communications of a personal nature with a judicial colleague.”

Those charges allege that Ademiluyi repeatedly contacted a fellow judge, identified only as “Individual 1,” on the judge’s personal cellphone. The judge had previously emailed Ademiluyi to address her lateness to a Zoom hearing, according to the charges.

Ademiluyi allegedly texted the judge that there was “only one way for us to let go of all this kind of tension. Not that quickly though but we will eventually get there. You can call me anytime. I’m always up late. Let’s have fun? Do you want to hang out?”

The judge she was texting responded “Please do not contact me any further on my cellphone. To be VERY clear, I have no interest in a personal relationship,” according to the charging document.

In Ademiulyi’s written response, she claimed that the unnamed judge referenced in the charges became hostile toward her after she rejected his sexual advances.

Ademiluyi has also filed a lawsuit against three fellow judges in federal court. None of the defendants named in the lawsuit have responded.

Full Article & Source:
Panel recommends censure, unpaid suspension for PG judge who refused training