In re Eakin
Decision Date | 24 March 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 13 JD 15,13 JD 15 |
Citation | 150 A.3d 1042 |
Parties | IN RE: J. Michael EAKIN, Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Court | Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline |
Francis J. Puskas, II, Deputy Chief Counsel, Judicial Conduct Board
James P. Kleman, Jr., Deputy Counsel
Elizabeth A. Flaherty, Deputy Counsel
William C. Costopoulos, Esquire
Before: Colville, P.J., Mullen, Panella, Shrager, Barton, and Hardaway, JJ.
The Judicial Conduct Board (Board) filed a Complaint with this Court on December 8, 2015 against J. Michael Eakin (Respondent), then a Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The charges were founded upon allegations that the Respondent had participated in the exchange of e-mails with friends and professional acquaintances which were insensitive and contained inappropriate references to matters involving gender, race, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.
The Complaint consisted of four counts which charged the Respondent as follows:
The Respondent filed an Answer to the Complaint on December 16, 2015. In his Answer, as well as his testimony at a hearing held on December 21, 2015, the Respondent denied having opened or read many of the e-mails that were sent to him and which the Board could not prove were opened by him. The Board maintained that it was able to prove that the Respondent opened (1) those e-mails or e-mail threads wherein the e-mail or e-mail thread indicated that Respondent replied to or forwarded the e-mail, or (2) e-mails, as described in Respondent's deposition or testimony in court, that Respondent remembered seeing all or part of the content thereof.
In accordance with a per curiam order entered on December 22, 2015, the Respondent was suspended from his judicial and administrative responsibilities pending further Order of Court.1
Trial was scheduled for March 29, 2016. There were numerous motions filed by the parties which were addressed by the Court.
On March 15, 2016, the Respondent resigned his position.
On March 17, 2016, the Board and the Respondent filed Stipulations of Fact in Lieu of Trial pursuant to C.J.D.R.P. No. 502(D)(1) and a Waiver of Right to Trial.
Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution makes clear that the Court of Judicial Discipline has the limited jurisdiction and power to address a single subject matter; to review and decide formal disciplinary charges filed by the Judicial Conduct Board against a judicial officer. See In re Bruno , 627 Pa. 505, 101 A.3d 635, 661–662 (2014) ; PA. CONST . art. V, § 18 (b)–(d). The constitutional amendment of 1993 establishing this Court provides specific instructions for the conduct of proceedings before this Court:
The subject of the charges shall be presumed innocent in any proceeding before the court, and the board shall have the burden of proving the charges by clear and convincing evidence.
PA. CONST . art. V, § 18 (b)(5).
Clear and convincing evidence is defined as evidence "that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Matter of Sylvester , 521 Pa. 300, 555 A.2d 1202, 1203–04 (1989).
The Court of Judicial Discipline has the authority to "order removal from office, suspension, censure or other discipline" of judicial officers. In re Bruno , 101 A.3d at 661.
Although the Respondent no longer holds office, our jurisdiction remains unchanged. Once a judicial disciplinary action has been instituted, authority over the disciplinary proceedings does not terminate until a final order and decision is rendered. This policy has been followed in a number of judicial discipline cases, one of the more recent being In re Ciavarella , 108 A.3d 983, 987 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2014). In In re Melograne , 571 Pa. 490, 812 A.2d 1164 (2002), our Supreme Court explained the rationale for our authority to proceed with a judicial discipline matter, even after the judicial officer has left office, whether voluntary or not:
The Court of Judicial Discipline exists to police the conduct of the judiciary and assure the public of the integrity of this branch of government ... Thus, we ... hold that the Court of Judicial Discipline has the power to sanction misbehaving judicial officers, regardless of whether they are in office during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
As stated above, the Board and the Respondent have filed Stipulations of Fact in Lieu of Trial pursuant to C.J.D.R.P. No. 502(D)(1) and a Waiver of Right to Trial. Rule 502 provides:
Two principles are firmly established in cases involving judicial discipline. First, in all cases, this Court is required to make an independent evaluation of the evidence, whether stipulated to or determined after a hearing, in order to decide whether the allegations have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and whether the conduct in issue violates the Pennsylvania Constitution or the Canons.2 This review must be conducted on a case-by-case basis. In re Berkhimer , 593 Pa. 366,930 A.2d 1255, 1258 (2007).3
Secondly, where the parties enter into stipulations of fact which are accepted by the Court, the facts so stipulated will be considered to have been proven as if the party bearing the burden of proof has produced clear and convincing evidence. See e.g. In re Zelloe , 686 A.2d 1034 (D.C. 1996) (attorney discipline); In re Wilfong , 234 W.Va. 394, 765 S.E.2d 283, 291 (2014) ;
In addition to factual stipulations, the parties have also stipulated to the authenticity and admissibility of all exhibits set forth in their respective pre-trial memoranda, filed of record, and to the authenticity and admissibility of all exhibits entered of record during the hearing held on December 21, 2015, also filed of record.
The parties have additionally stipulated to the authenticity and admissibility of the following, all of which have been filed and are contained in the record:
Also on March 17, 2016, the parties filed the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Smith, No. 2 EAP 2019
...410 Pa. 408, 189 A.2d 866, 868 (1963) (finding no need for proofs of matters upon which the parties stipulated); In re Eakin , 150 A.3d 1042, 1047 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) ("[W]here the parties enter into stipulations of fact which are accepted by the Court, the facts so stipulated will be......
-
Commonwealth v. Fears
...which he was involved, and thus could not form the basis of a judicial bias claim. Commonwealth Answer at 13 (citing In re Eakin , 150 A.3d 1042 (Pa. Ct. Jus. Disc. 2016) ). It pointed out Justice Eakin was one of a number of justices to participate in the resolution of Appellant's case, an......
-
Commonwealth v. Robinson
...Eakin responded to or forwarded an email, there was no way to refute Eakin's claim that he did not open them. See In re Eakin , 150 A.3d 1042, 1045-46 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016).To the extent we could conclude that the uninvited receipt of three offensive emails put Robinson on notice in 201......
-
Commonwealth v. Koehler, No. 768 CAP
...sweet tea. I swished and swished, and he didn't touch me!’Doctor: ‘You see how much keeping your mouth shut helps?’In re Eakin , 150 A.3d 1042, 1070 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016).2 Subsequently, on November 7, 2016, appellant filed a motion for discovery wherein he more pointedly alleged, "Just......