 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING COUNTY COURT JUDGE KELLY COLLINS11/25/1987
tive deficiencies are not so unique, but again represent the first such case presented to this Court by the Commission. The Commission, based upon its findings of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute, as opposed to willful misconduct in office, has determined that a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction finding that this case is somewhat similar to the trilogy of check collecting cases filed by the Commission. In Re Odom, 444 So. 2d 835 (Miss. 1984); In Re Lambert, 421 So. 2d 1023 (Miss. 1982); and In Re Branan, 419 So.2d 145 (Miss. 1982). Each of these cases involves the use of the criminal process to collect civil debts and the Commission and this Court did not find willful conduct in office, therefore, a sanction less than removal was imposed - a public reprimand and a fine. This Court has ruled that ignorance is distinguishable from willful and fraudulent misconduct, however:
. . .that a judge may also, through negligence or ignorance, not amounting to bad faith behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring the judicial office into disrepute. The result is the same regardless of whether bad faith or negligence and ignorance are involved and warrants sanctions. (Emphasis added).
In Re Inquiry Concerning Garner, 466 So.2d 884, 887 (Miss. 1985), [citing In Re (William) Anderson 451 So 2d 232,
234 (Miss. 1984)].
This Court, in judicial misconduct proceedings, is the trier of fact as a matter of law and as such gives great weight to the findings of the Commission but is not bound thereby. In Re Inquiry Concerning Garner, 466 So.2d 884 (Miss. 1985); In Re Brown, 458 So. 2d 681 (Miss. 1984). "This Court has the final responsibility and duty in matters considered by the Commission." Brown, 458 So.2d 681. Therefore, although the Commission recommended that Judge Collins be publicly reprimanded by this Court in accordance with Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution (1890), this Court may apply an additional sanction. Brown, 458 So.2d 681.
In Re Stewart, 490 So. 2d 882 (Miss. 1986), concerned the removal of a justice court judge, wherein this Court warned:
Official integrity of our Justice Court Judges is vitally important, for it is on that level that many citizens have their only experience with the judiciary. We may not tolerate misconduct or misfeasance on any ground, particularly not on grounds of ignorance or incompetence. 466 So.2d at 887.
490 So.2d at 885.
The instant case concerns not a mere justice court judge but a county court judge who claims to be ignorant of both the law and procedure of administering his court.
A county court judge, such as Kelly Collins, is charged with a higher degree of care and competence, since the duties of that office entail not only increased responsibility but a heightened knowledge of the law as well.
Any county judge, circuit judge or chancellor who pleads ignorance as a defense to a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct should do so with great care. Claim of ignorance of the duties of his office or negligence in carrying out those duties as a defense to judicial misconduct is tantamount to an admission by an accused judge that he does not possess the qualifications necessary to hold the office to which he has been elected.
We are constrained to agree with the dissent filed from the Commission's findings of fact and recommendation
that for several years and in uncounted instances Judge Collins has used county prisoners and trusties as his personal cadre of laborers. That the prisoners were per
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|