In re Placey
| Decision Date | 28 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2 JD 2020 |
| Parties | IN RE: Judge Thomas A. Placey Court of Common Pleas 9th Judicial District Cumberland County |
| Court | Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania |
On June 9, 2020, the Judicial Conduct Board (Board) filed a Board Complaint against Judge Thomas A. Placey (Respondent). On July 8, 2020, Respondent filed an Answer to the Complaint. On October 27, 2020, the Board filed an Amended Complaint. A pre-trial conference was conducted on March 30, 2021. Thereafter, the parties filed Joint Stipulations of Fact in Lieu of Trial and Waiver of Trial Pursuant to C.J.D.R.P. No. 502(D)(1). The following is the Board's brief in support of its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On October 5, 2017, while presiding over a hearing in the matter of Samento v. Samento, Respondent abruptly stopped the testimony of Tony Samento and ordered him out of the witness stand, yelling "Move it like you have a purpose." While still yelling, Respondent told Tony Samento's attorney, "You get your client under control or I am going to tear him up on the stand." (Joint Stipulations 4 - 9.) After yelling at the witness and his attorney, Respondent left the courtroom and did not permit Tony Samento to complete his testimony. (Joint Stipulation 12.) By order dated November 6, 2017, without ever reconvening the hearing and giving Tony Samento an opportunity to complete his testimony, Respondent found in favor of Nanci Samento and against Tony Samento. (Joint Stipulation 17.) On December 5, 2017, Tony Samento appealed Respondent's November 6, 2017 order. (Joint Stipulation 18.) On December 28, 2017, Tony Samento filed a motion requesting that Respondent recuse himself from the case, asserting that he had exhibited animosity and hostility toward him. (Joint Stipulation 19.) By order dated March 7, 2018, Respondent denied the motion for his recusal. (Joint Stipulation 20.) On January 16, 2019, the Superior Court vacated Respondent's November 6, 2017 decision, and remanded the case "for a hearing before another trial judge." (Joint Stipulation 21.) In its opinion, the Superior Court described the transcript and audio recording of Respondent's conduct during the October 8, 2017 hearing as "disconcerting" and stated that the record confirmed Respondent's "hostility" toward Tony Samento. (Joint Stipulations 22 - 23.) The Superior Court found that Respondent had denied Tony Samento due process by abruptly terminating the hearing and found that Respondent had abused his discretion when he denied Tony Samento's motion for recusal. (Joint Stipulations 24 and 25.)
At approximately 9 a.m. on January 15, 2019, Respondent was presiding over the sentencing in the matter of Commonwealth v. Moore. (Joint Stipulation 26.) An assistant district attorney called the case and noted for the record that she had just provided restitution information to Respondent. (Joint Stipulation 30.) Thereafter, Respondent berated the assistant district attorney, yelling at her in open court. After ordering the assistant district attorney to leave the courtroom all while yelling at herin open court, Respondent left the bench. (Joint Stipulations 32 and 35.) Moments later, Respondent returned to the courtroom and continued to yell at the assistant district attorney. Respondent also addressed a sheriff's deputy, to whom he yelled, "Haul her out" and "Move it, sheriff." (Joint Stipulation 34.) When the assistant district attorney apologized to the Respondent, he can be heard on the audio recording of the proceeding yelling at her and ordering her to (Joint Exhibit 6 and Joint Stipulation 34.) A reporter, who was in Respondent's courtroom during the Moore sentencing described Respondent's conduct as an "explosion." When deposed by the Board, Respondent described his conduct as "shouting" and "apoplectic." (Joint Stipulations 38 and 39.)
On August 8, 2018, Respondent was presiding over a custody proceeding in the matter of Gnazzo v. Gnazzo. (Joint Stipulation 40.) During the cross examination of one of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' attorney voiced an objection. (Joint Stipulation 42.) Rather than rule on the objection, Respondent yelled at the parties and their attorneys, announced, "We are taking a break" and left the bench. (Joint Stipulations 42 and 47.) While yelling at the parties and their attorneys, Respondent threw his glasses onto his desk. (Joint Stipulation 44.) When Respondent returned to the bench, the attorney who had been cross examining the witness when Respondent's angry outburst occurred declined to ask any further questions of the witness. (Joint Stipulation 48.)
On October 3, 2018, while Respondent was presiding over a custody proceeding in the matter of Wingard v. Wingard, a testifying witness exhibited confusion when her attorney asked her a question. (Joint Stipulations 49 and 50.) When the witness's attorney attempted clear up the confusion, Respondent interrupted saying, When the attorney responded to Respondent's question, he screamed, (Joint Stipulation 50 and 55.) Respondent left the bench only to return four minutes later at which time he made the following statement to the parties and their attorneys:
Relax. Have a seat. Ma'am, get back up here. Parents, if you can't tell I'm going to be hostile with you right now. Let me explain something, parents, all right. I haven't seen you folks before, but I give you an order to do something and it doesn't get done, you see my temperament. If you can't be nice to each other, don't even bother taking the witness stand. And if you're not ready to go when we start, you're going to get chewed up and spat out by me. Let's go counselor.
(Joint Stipulation 57.)
The attorney who had been questioning the witness when Respondent's angry outburst occurred described his tone as "blanket screaming" and said that it was a "12" on a scale of "1-10." (Joint Stipulation 53.) Opposing counsel, who was present during Respondent's screaming described his tone as "screaming" "beyond anything [she] had ever seen by a judge." Opposing counsel reported that Respondent's conduct left her "too frightened to move." (Joint Stipulations 55 and 56.)
On August 2, 2019, Attorney Corey Fahnestock was in the Cumberland County Courthouse waiting to meet with a client when Respondent's law clerk approached him and told him that Respondent wanted an attorney to appear on behalf of a defendant in a criminal proceeding at that very moment. (Joint Stipulations 58 through 60.) Being unfamiliar with the criminal case, Fahnestock declined the request. (Joint Stipulation 61.) Moments later, Respondent found Fahnestock and told him to follow him to a small conference room. (Joint Stipulation 64.) When Respondent, his law clerk and Fahnestock entered the conference room, Respondent ordered everyone else in the room to leave except Magisterial District Judge Michael Martin who had been presiding over another matter in the room. (Joint Stipulations 66 and 67.) After closing the door, Respondent told Fahnestock that when he tells an attorney to go somewhere, the attorney is required to do so. (Joint Stipulation 68.) While speaking to Fahnestock in the small conference room, Respondent used an excessively loud voice which could be heard by witnesses outside of the room. The witnesses who could hear Respondent from outside of the room described his volume as "yelling" and found his conduct "upsetting." (Joint Stipulations 72and 73.) Judge Martin explained that Respondent "went off" on Fahnestock. Later that same day, referring to his treatment of Fahnestock, Respondent asked Judge Martin, "How'd I do?" Judge Martin replied, "Glad I wasn't him." (Joint Stipulations 70 and 71.)
(Amended Complaint)
On June 6, 2019, Respondent was presiding over a hearing on a Protection from Abuse petition in the matter of Kimmett v. Kimmett. (Joint Stipulation 74.)While the defendant, Thomas Kimmett, was testifying on direct examination, his attorney, Lawrence Rosen, attempted to approach the witness to show him a document. (Joint Stipulation 75.) As the attorney approached the witness stand, Respondent told him not to approach the witness and added, "You will be out of the courtroom in a heartbeat." (Joint Stipulation 76.) When Rosen, who is hearing impaired, questioned what Respondent was saying, Respondent quickly stood up and while yelling at the attorney, asked him, "Can you hear me now?" (Joint Stipulations 79 - 81.) Respondent continued to yell at the attorney, asking him if he had been paying attention to how opposing counsel had provided documents to witnesses. (Joint Stipulation 80.) After the hearing concluded, Rosen went to Respondent's chambers and apologized for approaching the witness stand in the manner that caused Respondent's angry outburst. (Joint Stipulation 89.)
Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
Samento v. Samento
Respondent's conduct during the October 5, 2017 hearing in the Samento v. Samento matter violated Rules 2.6, 2.8 and 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Canon 2, Rule 2.6. Ensuring the Right to Be Heard.
A Judge shall accord to every person or entity who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person or entity's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
By abruptly terminating the October 5, 2017 proceeding in the Samento v. S...
To continue reading
Request your trial