In re Free

• Decision Date: 29 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2016–O–0434.,2016–O–0434.
• Citation: 199 So.3d 571
• Parties: In re Judge Robin FREE, EIghteenth Judicial District Court, Parishes of West Baton Rouge, Iberville, and Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

199 So.3d 571

In re Judge Robin FREE, EIghteenth Judicial District Court, Parishes of West Baton Rouge, Iberville, and Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana.

No. 2016–O–0434.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 2016.

199 So.3d 573

Office of Special Counsel, Mary Frances Whitney, Michael Bewers, for Applicant.

Schiff, Scheckman & White, Steven Robert Scheckman, for Respondent.

Kelly McNeil Legier, Commission Counsel.

GUIDRY, J.

This judicial disciplinary proceeding was instituted by the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana (“Commission”) against Judge J. Robin Free of the 18th Judicial District Court for the Parishes of Iberville, Pointe Coupee and West Baton Rouge.¹ The Formal Charge authorized by the Commission alleged Judge Free violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Louisiana Constitution, Article V, § 25 (C), in that he interrupted a private meeting between the family members of the victims and members of the District Attorney's Office, following a hearing in a criminal case before him, and made an inappropriate comment; abused his contempt authority and failed to follow the proper procedures for the punishment of contempt in two cases; and made inappropriate comments in seven criminal cases and exhibited a lack of proper decorum, demeanor, and temperament. After reviewing the recommendation of the Commission and the record, we find, by a clear and convincing evidence standard, that Judge Free violated Canons 1, 2, 2(A), 3(A)(1), 3(A)(2), 3(A)(3), and 3(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as Article V, Section 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution (1974). The Commission has recommended that Judge Free be suspended without pay for a period of one year and be ordered to

199 So.3d 574

reimburse the Commission in the amount of $11,098.68. For the reasons set forth below, we accept the recommendation of the Commission.

APPLICABLE LAW

This court is vested with exclusive original jurisdiction in judicial disciplinary proceedings by La. Const. art. V, § 25 (C), which provides in pertinent part:

On recommendation of the judiciary commission, the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, remove from office, or retire involuntarily a judge for willful misconduct relating to his official duty, willful and persistent failure to perform his duty, persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, conduct while in office which would constitute a felony, or conviction of a felony.

Pursuant to its supervisory authority over all lower courts, this court adopted the Code of Judicial Conduct, effective January 1, 1976, which supplements the Constitution's substantive grounds for disciplinary action against a judge. Violations of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, without more, may serve as the basis for the disciplinary action provided for by La. Const. art. 5, § 25 (C). The charge against a judge must be proved by clear and convincing evidence before this court can impose discipline. In re: Hunter, 02–1975 p. 3 (La.8/19/02), 823 So.2d 325, 328.

FORMAL CHARGES

In June and as amended in December of 2014, the Judiciary Commission filed Formal Charge 0336 against Judge Free, (hereinafter “Respondent”), consisting of four counts of alleged misconduct.²

Count One of the Formal Charge alleged Respondent violated Canons 1, 2, 2 A, 3 A(1), 3 A(4), 3 A(6), and 3 C of the Code of Judicial Conduct and La. Const. art. V, § 25 (C) by interrupting a private meeting between the family members of the victims and members of the District Attorney's Office, following a hearing in a criminal case before him, and making inappropriate comments.³

Count Two and Amended Count Three alleged Respondent violated Canons 1, 2 A, and 3 A(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and La. Const. art. V, § 25 (C) by abusing his contempt authority. Count Two alleged Respondent held Mr. Michael V. Owens in direct contempt of court and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment when Mr. Owens's conduct was not contemptuous and without following the proper procedures for the punishment of a direct contempt, including failing to give him an opportunity to be heard orally by way of defense or mitigation. Amended

199 So.3d 575

Count Three alleged Respondent held another misdemeanor defendant, Ebonique Minor, in direct contempt of court and sentenced her to a term of imprisonment also without following the proper contempt procedures.

Amended Count Four alleged Respondent violated Canons 1, 2 A, 3 A(2), and 3 A(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and La. Const. art. V, § 25 (C) by making inappropriate comments and exhibiting a lack of proper decorum, demeanor, and temperament in seven separate criminal cases.

A hearing officer was appointed to conduct proceedings in this matter pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 29. Following a hearing in January 2015, the Hearing Officer filed a report with the Commission containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereafter, the Commission established a briefing schedule, as required by Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 29, and ordered Respondent to appear on October 16, 2015 for questioning by the Commissioners. On March 9, 2016, the Commission filed its recommendation in this court, finding Respondent's conduct was in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and recommending he be suspended without pay for one year and be ordered to reimburse the Commission its costs. The matter was then heard by this court on May 3, 2016, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 14. Due to the unrelated factual nature of three of the four counts, we will address each count in turn.

Count One

Count One arises out of a criminal case assigned to Respondent in 2010 and 2011. Attorney James Boren, who appeared before Respondent on behalf of a defendant charged with three counts of vehicular homicide, sent correspondence to the Judiciary Commission. Mr. Boren attached copies of pleadings alleging Respondent met ex parte with members of the District Attorney's Office and the victims' families after a hearing in the case, raising issues of bias, the appearance of impropriety, and failure to self-recuse.

Count One alleged Respondent violated Canons 1 (a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary), 2 (a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities), 2 A (a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary), 3 A(1) (a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it), 3 A(4) (a judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice; a judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice), and 3 C (a judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned and shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which disqualification is required by law or applicable Supreme Court rule) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission further alleged Respondent engaged in willful misconduct relating to his official duty and engaged in persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brought the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of La. Const. art. V, § 25 (C).

Respondent has now acknowledged the evidence is clear and convincing that his conduct violated Canons 1 and 2 A when he entered the District Attorney's coffee lounge and made certain comments, as discussed in more depth below. He further agrees with the Commission that his conduct did not violate Canons 3 A(4) and 3 A(1). Respondent, however, disagrees with the Commission that his conduct violated Canon 3 C, because he does not

199 So.3d 576

believe the evidence supports a finding that he should have recused himself after he had interrupted the meeting that is the subject matter of Count 1. Finally, Respondent agrees with the Commission that he did not engage in persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brought the judicial office into disrepute in violation of La. Const. art. V, § 25 (C). But he does concede that, because he exercised poor judgment in not immediately exiting the coffee lounge upon entering and in making the statement attributed to him by the District Attorney, he engaged in willful misconduct related to his official duty in violation of La. Const. art. V, § 25 (C).

Findings of Fact

Our review of the record supports the factual findings of the Hearing Officer as adopted by the Commission, as well as the additional findings of the Commission. Those findings are summarized below.

In May 2009, Jerry Jordan was piloting a boat on the False River when he struck another boat, killing three young men and injuring a fourth. Mr. Jordan was allegedly intoxicated at the time of the accident. In September 2009, Mr. Jordan was indicted by a...