 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Brown6/8/2000
fected.
7. Whether moral turpitude was involved. In re Baker, 535 So.2d at 54.
. Applying these factors here, Judge Brown has served for nearly twenty years as a Justice Court Judge. The record does not otherwise reflect Judge Brown's public service or service to the community. Numerous Mississippi judges have been sanctioned for engaging in ex parte communications and for abuse of the judicial office. Judge Brown used his judicial position in an attempt to influence the outcome of his son's case. The number of people affected by Judge Brown's actions include another judge, law enforcement officers and the future of his own son. There was no evidence adduced regarding Judge Brown's positive contributions made to the courts and the community or Judge Brown's record to fairness and use of innovative procedural form. The only mitigation attempted by Judge Brown is an explanation that he was only acting as a father in doing what he did.
. Based on our assessment of all of the factors, we conclude that a public reprimand is appropriate. In Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Judge R.R., 732 So.2d 224, 234 (Miss. 1999) , we listed numerous occasions in which this Court has held a public reprimand was warranted by the facts of the case. Given the facts herein, a public reprimand is consistent with prior penalties issued by this Court in other cases of judicial misconduct.
. The Commission also requested that Judge Brown be assessed for the costs. This Court recently held that "an assessment of such costs is in keeping with precedent of this Court and is reasonable where 'the complaining party is on notice that such costs are being sought and where the behavior of the complaining party is the reason for incurring of the costs.'" Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. A Municipal Court Judge, No. 199-JP-0135-SCT, 2000 WL 125035 at *4 (Miss. Feb. 3, 1999)(quoting Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Russell, 724 So.2d 873, 874 (Miss. 1998)). The Judge was on notice that the Commission requested that costs be assessed against him.
. In accordance with this Court's precedents, we assess costs of $407.75 against Judge Brown.
CONCLUSION
. For these reasons, we hold that, (1) Winston County Justice Court Judge A.L. (Bud) Brown committed willful judicial misconduct in making ex parte contacts with the judge assigned to his son's DUI case, in contacting the arresting officer, and in contacting that officer's supervisor, (2) that the appropriate sanction for Judge Brown is a public reprimand and a fine of $500, and (3) Judge Brown is so reprimanded and fined. Costs in the amount of $407.75 are taxed to Judge Brown.
. A copy of this opinion shall be forwarded by the clerk of this Court to the Circuit Court of Winston County with instructions that the presiding circuit court judge read this opinion in open court on the first day of the next court term with Judge Brown present.
. A.L. (BUD) BROWN, A JUSTICE COURT JUDGE IN WINSTON COUNTY, SHALL BE PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED, FINED $500, AND ASSESSED WITH TOTAL COSTS OF $407.75 TO BE PAID WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS.
PRATHER, C.J., PITTMAN AND BANKS, P.JJ., MILLS, WALLER, COBB AND DIAZ, JJ., CONCUR. SMITH, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|