Greene County judge charged with judicial misconduct

Judge Farley Toothman

by Lacretia Wimbley

A Greene County judge faces charges of judicial misconduct in the handling of several criminal cases, including one in which he ordered a woman jailed for 25 days in alleged retaliation for a 2017 incident involving his law clerk.

The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board filed a 21-count complaint against President Judge Farley Toothman, who serves on the Greene County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint was filed Thursday with the state Court of Judicial Discipline.

The board accuses Judge Toothman of retaliating against a woman, Christy McCarty, who was a customer at a Sunoco gas station and convenience store near the courthouse in Waynesburg on Sept. 6, 2017, when she questioned the actions of the judge's law clerk Alexsandra Chamberlain, who was also at the station. McCarty left, the complaint said, but Chamberlain felt as though she was being accused of theft, so she confronted the store clerks.

Store employees told her they were not accusing her of anything, but stated they would have their supervisor review surveillance video later because she appeared “suspicious,” the complaint said.

The law clerk left and returned to Judge Toothman’s chambers, where she told him about the incident, according to the complaint. The complaint said the judge then went to the gas station with Chamberlain to talk to the employees, but the judge and his law clerk were asked to leave due to “harassment.”

Judge Toothman called police and had them investigate, but no charges were filed in the matter against either of the women.

The Judicial Board’s filing stated that Judge Toothman told his staff to search McCarty’s court records and ordered an immediate hearing the next day for her without prior notice in an unrelated case. At the closed-door hearing, which was held without attorneys or prosecutors present, Judge Toothman found McCarty guilty of civil contempt for allegedly violating a payment plan in connection with that case.

She was held for 25 days at the Greene County Prison, the complaint said.

In an Oct. 2, 2017 hearing, the Judicial Board complaint stated, the judge asked McCarty if she was going to be a "good girl" after her time in jail. She was released that day. No payments were made during her incarceration.

The Judicial Board also accused the judge of attempting to cover up misdeeds by having courthouse staff sign non-disclosure agreements. One such employee, a custodial worker, refused, the complaints states.

The judge could not be reached for comment on the charges but told the Observer-Reporter newspaper Thursday night that the complaint was regrettable.

“I do my best every day,” Judge Toothman said. “I respect the system and will comply with the process.”

Judge Toothman has 30 days to respond to the complaint.

If the Court of Judicial Discipline finds Judge Toothman to be guilty of any of the charges in the complaint, a hearing will be held to determine what sanction should be imposed. Sanctions include censure, suspension, fines and removal from office.

Full Article & Source:
Greene County judge charged with judicial misconduct

Justices Probe Use of Precedent in Judicial Discipline

Attorneys representing two Philadelphia judges removed from the bench last year may have wanted to argue about the unfairness of the disciplinary process or the sanctions their clients received, but the state Supreme Court was only interested in hearing about the role that prior precedent may play in the Court of Judicial Discipline's deliberative process.

On Tuesday the justices heard argument in the disciplinary cases against former Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Angeles Roca and former Municipal Court Judge Dawn Segal, who were removed from the bench last year.

The justices, who had specifically granted the appeals on the issue of what role stare decisis should play for the CJD, asked about what the process should be for determining sanctions, whether the disciplinary body should have to outline its reasoning and what role the Supreme Court can play in hearing appeals. Any arguments that Roca and Segal were not afforded due process or that their sentences went beyond the bounds of fairness were quickly rejected by the court.

When attorney Samuel Stretton, who represented Roca and argued first before the Supreme Court, said he did not think removal was warranted for Roca since she had only sought a rule returnable in a case involving her son, Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor put an end to that argument, saying Roca's son received a ruling that nobody else would have. Stretton is a regular contributor to Pennsylvania Law Weekly, an affiliate of The Legal.

"Her son received something a similarly situated citizen would not have," Saylor said.

During attorney Stuart Haimowitz's time arguing, Haimowitz, who is representing Segal, said his client had not been given adequate due process since the sanction varied so vastly from the conduct at issue.

However, Saylor again put an end to that argument, saying "of course she did," and that Haimowitz was making "a serious allegation."

Saylor dismissed Haimowitz from the lectern after the exchange following only a few minutes of argument, saying, in part, that Haimowitz's arguments were repeating some of the issues Stretton had previously raised.

When it came to the question regarding stare decisis, Stretton contended that the court needed to consider precedent when making its decisions on sanctions. According to Stretton, the court did not do any proportionality analysis when considering Roca's sanctions, but simply decided that corruption requires removal.

"I'm suggesting that the court had no studied review of the case law of the past 24 to 25 years of that court and the Supreme Court treating that kind of case different from removal," Stretton said. "What happened here was a sea change."

Justice Debra Todd said Stretton was asking for a "robotic" approach where the court would simply have to follow a check list, but Stretton replied that he did not believe the court needed to be so strictly bound by stare decisis, but simply that it needed to review and distinguish the case law when making a ruling.

Robert Graci, chief counsel for the Judicial Conduct Board, argued in reply that the CJD did what it needed to do in terms of reviewing the precedent, and that a finding by the justices that the court was bound by stare decisis would not change the decision to remove Roca and Segal.

Graci said he was not surprised by the decision to remove Segal and Roca given the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in In re Magisterial District Judge Bruno, which, he said, found that corruption had no place on the bench.

"I think that the times have changed," Graci said.  (Click to Continue)

Full Article & Source:
Justices Probe Use of Precedent in Judicial Discipline

Colorado’s judicial discipline agency budget mostly secret

Since its inception nearly 50 years ago, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline has only made three disciplinary cases against judges public, and the director told Watchdog.org that even the commission’s budget is a state secret.

Colorado, whose judicial discipline secrecy is enshrined in the state constitution, is one of only a handful of states where the fact-finding hearing after formal charges isn’t public, records from the American Judicature Society show. In the three times the information was released in Colorado there was a formal hearing scheduled before the state Supreme Court.

CCJD Executive Director William Campbell, who noted he increased transparency since taking over about six years ago, said the process works fine and sees no reason to change it.

“When there’s a problem, we address it,” he said. “Nothing is getting shuffled under the rug.”

But Cynthia Gray, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics, said judges should face a similar system as when there are criminal complaints against average people.

“That’s how the court system works,” she said. “The grand jury proceedings are confidential, but when an indictment is filed it is public.”

Photo by Arthur Kane

Campbell said Colorado doesn’t have the same problems as places that elect their judges and has a State Commission on Judicial Performance that recommends whether voters should retain the appointed judges.

He also said there have been between 20 and 30 cases in the commission’s history that would have become public, but the judges resigned or retired before the cases made it to the state Supreme Court. There have also been about 300 private disciplinary actions since 1967 when the CCJD started its work, Campbell wrote in an email.

“People who complain about a judge will be more comfortable if their names are not public,” he said. “They don’t want to be in the news. And people might not want to be judges if complaints are public.”

Gray said a public hearing helps protect the accused judge and society.

“It’s a protection for the judge involved so he can defend himself in public and for the public to make sure the work is being done properly,” she said.

Only 15 states and the District of Columbia make formal action public only if a court orders or recommends public discipline, AJS records show. The other states make formal charges against a judge public or have open hearings on those allegations.

Campbell said two Colorado judges were publicly disciplined in the 1980s and last year the state Supreme Court publicly censured Larimer County Judge Robert A. Rand. He resigned before the formal Supreme Court hearing.

Campbell said Rand made “racy” comments that left people in his court — particularly women — uncomfortable, met privately with people before his court without the competing side present and used state resources for his personal antique car business.

The CCJD’s annual reports show that the public never finds out about the details of dozens of sometimes significant complaints. Last year, the commission received 189 complaints, similar numbers to previous years. Campbell dismissed 170 of those because they didn’t meet the guidelines of what the commission investigates and the commission dismissed all but 10 of the rest as unfounded or under the jurisdiction of appellate courts.

Of the remaining complaints, one judge was put on diversionary education for docket management, one complaint was solved when the judge retired, one — apparently Rand — was put into formal proceeding and two judges received private discipline. Five cases were carried over to 2014, according to the CCJD’s annual report.

Campbell said the private discipline is often about relatively minor issues like docket management or when a judge says something in court he or she shouldn’t have.

“I think it’s working pretty well,” he said. “The kinds of things we run into here are not typically as serious as states with elected judges.”

One of the two private disciplinary measures detailed in the 2013 annual report was a reprimand against a judge who didn’t recuse himself or notify litigants in cases involving a company where the judge’s brother was employed as a top executive. The CCJD only investigated when the issue was highlighted by a media report.

Full Article & Source:
Colorado’s judicial discipline agency budget mostly secret

Erie County Common Pleas judge to remain on bench during Judicial Conduct Board ethics case

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania — An Erie County judge accused of disrespecting litigants and mishandling cases can remain on the bench until the Court of Judicial Discipline deals with those charges.

The Judicial Conduct Board in July charged Erie Common Pleas Court Judge Stephanie Domitrovich with violating behavioral standards for judges, failing to disqualify herself from certain cases and providing misleading and false answers to the board's lawyers. The board had also asked the Court of Judicial Discipline to suspend her in the meantime, but the court refused after a hearing Monday.

The Erie Times-News (http://bit.ly/1CDOr3R ) reports defense Leonard Ambrose III argued that leaving Domitrovich on the bench doesn't undermine public confidence in the courts.

The judge has heard 493 cases involving 110 attorneys since July, Ambrose said, and "The roof of the Erie County Courthouse hasn't fallen in."

Full Article & Source:
Erie County Common Pleas judge to remain on bench during Judicial Conduct Board ethics case