Judicial misconduct occurs when ajudge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct.
Actions that can be classified as judicial misconduct include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts (as an extreme example: "falsification of facts" atsummary judgment); using the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives; acceptingbribes,gifts, or other personal favors related to the judicial office; having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case; treatinglitigants orattorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner; violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as judicial rules of procedure or evidence, or those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure; and acting outside the jurisdiction of the court, or performance of official duties if the conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts among reasonable people. Rules of official misconduct also include rules concerning disability, which is a temporary or permanent condition rendering a judge unable to discharge the duties of the particular judicial office.[1]
JusticeC. S. Karnan was sentenced to six months of imprisonment by the Supreme Court of India, holding him guilty of contempt of court. He was the first Indian High Court judge to be sent to prison for contempt while in office.[2][3]
A judicial investigative committee is a panel of judges selected to investigate a judicial misconduct complaint against a judge accused of judicial misconduct. Judicial investigative committees are rarely appointed. According to U.S. Court statistics, only 18 of the 1,484 judicial misconduct complaints filed in the United States Courts between September 2004 and September 2007 resulted in the formation of judicial investigative committees.[4]
New Jersey Appellate DivisionJudge Carmen H. Alvarez, widow of Atlantic County Judge Edgar R Holmes, sued in United States Federal Court for conspiring with Mercer County Superior CourtJudge Mary Jacobson and others to violate and deprive Plaintiff Jon S. Ehrlich of his civil rights. Another defendant, Camden New Jersey Superior Court Judge Michael J. Kassel, was later reprimanded for being unprepared; failing to maintain impartiality; and acting unprofessionally. Kassel's statement of ignorance of the law and comments about not reading the papers, cited in the ACJC complaint against him,[14] were identical to what he previously told Plaintiff when he dismissed a legal malpractice claim against one negligent attorney, while simultaneously failing to bother ruling on 2/3 of Plaintiff's counts.[15] Despite the failures of Kassel, as part of the conspiracy to shield the court and corrupt colleagues, Judge Alvarez affirmed Kassel's decision. In furthering the conspiracy, Judge Alvarez affirmed Judge Jacobson's decision disregarding Judge Dennis McInerney's commission of Federal and state crimes in looting and dissipating the assets of a multi-million dollar estate after being appointed as CTA by his close friend Burlington County Superior Court Judge Michael Hogan, who acted in direct violation of various iterations of NJ Court Directive 11-18[16] and the NJ Code of Judicial Conduct. The Federal suit was dismissed with 3rd Circuit Appeal based on Absolute Immunity, a doctrine that has been galvanized by judges for judges over hundreds of years.[17][18]
Burlington County, New JerseyPresiding Municipal Judge Dennis P. McInerney-Federal judge blasts township court for jailing man who couldn't pay littering fine[19][20]
In re James D. Heiple, No. 97 CC 1 (4/30/1997) (Respondent, Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, was censured for conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and brings the judicial office into disrepute for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61 and 62(A). Specifically, Respondent belligerently volunteered information that he was a member of the judiciary (e.g., "Do you know who you are talking to?" "Do you know who I am?") after being detained by police who suspected that he had violated traffic laws. Moreover, on three occasions, Respondent displayed an Illinois Supreme Court Justice identification credential to law enforcement to avoid receiving traffic citations. Respondent knew or should have known that communicating such information was likely to influence the officers who were investigating him and would be perceived by them as an attempt to use his judicial office to preclude being charged with traffic violations.)
