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
