In re Goldston, 20-0742

Case DateNovember 18, 2021
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia


No. 20-0742

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

November 18, 2021

Submitted: September 15, 2021


Teresa A. Tarr, Esq. Brian J. Lanham, Esq. Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission

Andrew S. Nason, Esq. Pepper & Nason Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for Respondent Goldston.

Susan Shelton Perry, Esq. Logan, West Virginia Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Family Judicial Association


JUSTICE ARMSTEAD delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE WOOTON dissents and reserves the right to file a separate Opinion, JUSTICE HUTCHISON deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in the decision of this case. JUDGE JENNIFER P. DENT, sitting by temporary assignment




1. "The purpose of judicial disciplinary proceedings is the preservation and enhancement of public confidence in the honor, integrity, dignity, and efficiency of the members of the judiciary and the system of justice." Syl. Pt. 1, in part, In re Cruickshanks, 220 W.Va. 513, 648 S.E.2d 19 (2007).

2. The West Virginia Constitution forbids a judicial officer to participate in a search because a search is an exercise of executive power. W.Va. Const. art. 5, § 1.

3. "Under [Rule 4.5 of the West Virginia Rules of Disciplinary Procedure], the allegations of a complaint in a judicial disciplinary proceeding must be proved by clear and convincing evidence." Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Matter of Ferguson, 242 W.Va. 691, 841 S.E.2d 887 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

4. "Stipulations or agreements made in open court by the parties in the trial of a case and acted upon are binding and a judgment founded thereon will not be reversed." Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Matter of Starcher, 202 W.Va. 55, 501 S.E.2d 772 (1998).

5. "In a disciplinary proceeding against a judge, in which the burden of proof is by clear and convincing evidence, where the parties enter into stipulations of fact, 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 to prove the facts so stipulated." Syl. Pt. 4, Matter of Starcher, 202 W.Va. 55, 501 S.E.2d 772 (1998).

6. In determining what sanction or sanctions, if any, to impose under Rule 4.12 of the West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure [eff. 2019], this


Court will consider various factors, including, but not limited to, (1) whether the charges of misconduct are directly related to the administration of justice or the public's perception of the administration of justice, (2) whether the circumstances underlying the charges of misconduct are entirely personal in nature or whether they relate to the judicial officer's public persona, (3) whether the charges of misconduct involve violence or a callous disregard for our system of justice, (4) whether the judicial officer has been criminally indicted, and (5) any mitigating or compounding factors which might exist.




In this judicial disciplinary proceeding, a family court judge searched a self-represented party's home for marital property. When the homeowner protested, the judge responded to the homeowner's resistance by threatening to jail him for contempt. This interaction was recorded, and the recording soon appeared on the internet.

The judge was reported to the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission, and after investigation, the Judicial Investigation Commission charged the judge with violating the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct ("Code of Judicial Conduct"). The judge professed remorse and entered into a settlement agreement with Judicial Disciplinary Counsel. Under the agreement, the judge admitted to both the conduct in question and to the fact that it violated the Code of Judicial Conduct; both parties agreed to recommend that the judge be censured and fined $5, 000. The Judicial Hearing Board, however, rejected the parties' recommendation. The Hearing Board recommended that the judge be admonished and fined $1, 000, and-believing that a judge's "inherent authority" to conduct "judicial views" is "uncertain"-requested guidance from this Court.

Both Judicial Disciplinary Counsel and the judge object to the Judicial Hearing Board's recommendation. Seizing on the Judicial Hearing Board's uncertainty about "judicial views," the judge now attempts to persuade us that her search of the residence was lawful-even as she professes to remain bound by the settlement agreement.


After considering the record and the parties' written[1] and oral arguments, we reject the judge's attempt to reframe her conduct. We find that she led a search of the homeowner's residence, not a "judicial view," and that, in so doing, she exercised executive powers forbidden to her under the West Virginia Constitution. We find, further, that the judge compounded her error by the manner in which she conducted the search. Accordingly, we disagree with the Judicial Hearing Board and publicly censure the judge for her serious misconduct. In addition, we order the judge to pay a total fine of $1, 000.


The Honorable Louise E. Goldston is a family court judge who presides in Raleigh, Summers, and Wyoming Counties. She has served since 1994, [2] and until now, she has never been disciplined for judicial misconduct.

Judge Goldston admits that she had a 20-year practice of going to parties' homes "to either determine if certain disputed marital property was present and/or to supervise the transfer of disputed property." In almost every instance, these searches were requested by counsel and were performed without objection. In most cases, the search followed counsel's request immediately, indeed while the hearing was taking place.


The search that led to this disciplinary matter happened on March 4, 2020, in the context of a contempt hearing. One of the parties, an ex-wife, claimed that her former husband had damaged items of property and had refused to turn over other items of sentimental value that she was entitled to receive.

For this proceeding the ex-wife was represented by counsel. The ex-husband was not represented by counsel. During the ex-wife's testimony, Judge Goldston asked the ex-husband for his address. Upon learning his address, Judge Goldston stopped the hearing, sua sponte, and ordered the parties to meet her in ten minutes at the ex-husband's house. Judge Goldston admits that she failed to tell the ex-husband why the parties were going to his home and that she gave the ex-husband no opportunity to object.

Judge Goldston's intent became clear, however, when everyone arrived at the residence. The ex-husband voiced his objections, requesting that Judge Goldston recuse herself because she had placed herself in a "witness capacity." Judge Goldston denied his request as not timely filed.

After the ex-husband stated that he needed a search warrant to allow Judge Goldston to enter his house, Judge Goldston told the ex-husband that he was either going to let her in the house or her bailiff, who had accompanied her to the house, was going to arrest the ex-husband. Judge Goldston also asked the ex-husband if he was recording her attempt to enter his home and when he confirmed that he was, she directed that he stop recording and told him (and apparently his girlfriend who was also attempting to record their conversation) to turn off their phones. Judge Goldston also indicated that if they did


not turn off their phones and stop recording she would take the ex-husband, or perhaps both he and his girlfriend, to jail. Although the conversation between Judge Goldston and the ex-husband was not transcribed, the recording of the conversation appears to include Judge Goldston stating: "I am the judge trying to effect equitable distribution. We're having a hearing. Now, you let me in that house or he [the bailiff] is going to arrest you for being in direct contempt of court."

Faced with these threats, the ex-husband relented, and Judge Goldston agrees that the ex-husband felt he had no choice to do otherwise. Judge Goldston brought with her into the house the bailiff, the ex-wife, and the ex-wife's attorney and personally supervised the search for and recovery of items. Several items were located and recovered, including photographs, yearbooks, DVDs, recipes, and a chainsaw. While the home was being searched, a dispute emerged about an umbrella stand. After a brief colloquy with the ex-husband, the judge awarded the stand to the ex-wife, who removed it from the home with the other items.

Judge Goldston, herself, made no arrangement to record what went on inside the home (or outside the home). Indeed, when she found out afterward that her bailiff had made his own cell-phone recording of the search inside the home, she believed that making the recording was improper and told him not to do it again.

After the search, the parties reconvened in the courtroom. On the record, Judge Goldston listed the items that had been recovered and some items that remained to


be exchanged. However, no written order was entered regarding either the search of the home or the items recovered.

Though Judge Goldston may have stopped the ex-husband (and a bystander) from recording what went on outside the home, she did not order the recordings destroyed. Audio and video footage of what took place was uploaded to the internet. Some online comments were deeply critical of the judge and her conduct.

Judicial Disciplinary Counsel became aware of these matters, and on March 11, 2020, Judicial Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint with the Judicial Investigation Commission.[3]...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT