In re Placey

• Decision Date: 03 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

IN RE: Judge Thomas A. Placey Court of Common Pleas

9^th Judicial District Cumberland County

2 JD 2020

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

May 3, 2021

JOINT STIPULATIONS OF FACT IN LIEU OF TRIAL AND WAIVER OF TRIAL PURSUANT TO C.J.D.R.P. NO. 502(D)(1)

AND NOW, this 3^rd day of May, 2021, comes the Judicial Conduct Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Board), and Judge Thomas A. Placey, by and through their undersigned counsel, and file these Joint Stipulations Of Fact In Lieu Of Trial And Waiver Of Trial Pursuant To C.J.D.R.P. No. 502(D)(1), as follows:

1. Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania grants to the Board the authority to determine whether there is probable cause to file formal charges against a judicial officer in this Court, and thereafter, to prosecute the case in support of such charges in this Court.

2. From January 2, 2012, to the present, Judge Placey has served continuously as a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County.

3. As a judicial officer, Judge Placey is subject to all the duties and responsibilities imposed on him by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Samento v. Samento

4. On October 5, 2017, Judge Placey was presiding over a hearing in a civil action in the matter of Tony Samento v. Nanci Samento, Cumberland County Docket No. 2009-08051 in which Nanci Samento asserted a breach of the marriage settlement agreement.

5. After Nanci Samento testified and presented a witness, Tony Samento took the witness stand to testify.

6. During Tony Samento's testimony, counsel for Nanci Samento voiced a hearsay objection whereupon the following exchange took place:

Judge: Well, I don't know what he is saying so I don't know.

Attorney: He was indicating what he learned from the State Police.

Judge: And I don't -

Tony Samento: I'm sure there's a record of this.

Judge: Sir.

Tony Samento: I'm sorry.

Judge: Sit down now. Down. Out of that seat.

Tony Samento: I'm sorry.

Judge: Move it like you have a purpose.

Tony Samento: I'm sorry, Your Honor

7. At this point, the judge stood and Tony Samento, who was seated in the witness stand, abruptly slid his chair back, colliding with the wall behind him.

8. As the judge stood to leave, the following exchange took place:

Judge: I'll tell you when I'm coming back. It's not going to be today. You get your client under control or I am going to tear him up on the stand. Do you understand me?

Attorney: I'm not sure, Your Honor, but I'll try to.

Judge: He talks over me one more time, I am going to rule summarily against him. Do you understand that?

Attorney: Yes, Your Honor.

9. An audio recording produced with the use of microphones during this proceeding established that at times during the exchanges described above, the volume of the judge's voice was excessively loud, to the point of yelling.

10. The exchanges described above can be heard beginning at approximately 1:43:30 on the audio recording of the proceeding. (Exhibit 1.)

11. The audio recording of the proceeding is the best evidence of the volume of the judge's voice and his demeanor.

12. At the conclusion of the above exchange, the judge left the courtroom and did not return to the bench that day relative to the Samento v. Samento matter.

13. Tony Samento was not afforded an opportunity to finish his testimony or to present further witnesses regarding the issue before the judge on October 5, 2017.

14. Immediately after concluding the hearing, counsel for the parties met with the judge in chambers.

15. During this meeting Tony Samento's counsel confirmed her in-court statement to possessing the previously sought video recording at issue.

16. Tony Samento's counsel was then directed by the judge to turn over the tape to opposing counsel within two weeks, which was not done and opposing counsel thereafter filed a motion to compel.

17. By order dated November 6, 2017, the Judge found partially in favor of Nanci Samento.

18. On December 5, 2017, Tony Samento filed an appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania of the judge's November 6, 2017 order.

19. On December 28, 2017, Tony Samento filed a motion requesting that the judge recuse himself from the case, asserting that the judge had exhibited animosity and hostility toward him.

20. The judge denied the motion to recuse by order dated March 7, 2018.

21. On January 16, 2019, the Superior Court vacated the judge's November 6, 2017 decision and remanded the case "for a hearing before another trial judge."

22. In its January 16, 2019 opinion, the Superior Court called the transcript of the October 5, 2017 hearing "disconcerting."

23. In its January 16, 2019 opinion, the Superior Court stated that the audio recording confirmed the "hostility" of the trial court toward Tony Samento.

24. In its January 16, 2019 opinion, the Superior Court found that the judge had denied Tony Samento's due process rights by abruptly terminating the hearing.

25. In its opinion, the Superior Court found that the judge had abused his discretion when he denied Tony Samento's motion for recusal.

Commonwealth v. Moore

26. At approximately 9 a.m. on January 15, 2019, Judge Placey was presiding over sentencing in the matter of Commonwealth v. D'Andre Moore, CP-21-CR-2521-2018.

27. The guilty plea was scheduled for January 9, 2019. Sentencing guidelines, victim impact statements and restitution information are required in advance of the guilty plea.

28. At the time of the sentencing proceeding referenced above, the courtroom was open to the public.

29. At the time of the sentencing proceeding referenced above, members of the public, the media, the victim and a victim advocate were present in the courtroom.

30. Michelle Sibert, an Assistant District Attorney representing the Commonwealth called the case and noted on the record that the judge had just been provided a written restitution request.

31. The judge indicated that the request was "different from the one that was in the file."

32. Thereafter, the transcript of the proceeding indicates that the following exchange took place:

Sibert: I don't think there was anything in the file.

Judge: Oh, there was. I read the file. See, I come in on the weekends and read these files.

Sibert: Right. There was no restitution in the file. That's not restitution. It is saying there's no restitution.

Judge: Yes.

Sibert: At the time of the plea I informed - -

Judge: Yes. I'm saying it is different than what is in the file I read over - -

Sibert: I informed the Court - -Judge: Why do you talk over me? Step out of here. Get out. Take him back down to the cell. I will deal with him when I am ready. You, out.

Sibert: Your Honor - -

Judge: Out. Now. Do you not listen? What is the problem with your hearing today? You, out. Out. Hand that file to somebody else.

33. At this point, the judge left the courtroom for a brief period of time.

34. When the judge reentered the courtroom, the transcript of the proceeding reflects that the following exchange took place:

Judge: Haul her out. She is the first one out of this courtroom. I walk back in here and she is still here. Get her out. Move it, sheriff.

Seibert: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

Judge: Move it. Quit talking. Lord have mercy. You show me enough disrespect all freaking day long. What is your problem? Get out of here. She does not walk back into this courtroom, sheriff.

35. An audio recording produced with the use of microphones during this proceeding established that at times during the exchanges described above, the volume of the judge's voice was excessively loud, to the point of yelling.

36. The exchanges described above can be heard beginning at approximately 0:44 seconds on the audio recording of the proceeding. (Exhibit 6.)

37. The audio recording of the proceeding is the best evidence of the volume of the judge's voice, demeanor and verbiage.

38. When deposed by Board counsel on February 5, 2020, the judge described his demeanor and tone and volume of his voice during the January 15, 2019 proceeding as "shouting" and "apoplectic".

39. The judge's conduct during the sentencing proceeding on January 15, 2019, was the subject of a published newspaper article by Matt Miller. The reporter, who was present in the courtroom during the January 15, 2019 proceeding, described the judge's conduct as an "explosion."

Gnazzo v. Gnazzo

40. On August 8, 2018, Judge Placey was presiding over a custody proceeding in the matter of Gnazzo v. Gnazzo, Cumberland County Docket No. 2017-07655.

41. The judge had advised the parties and litigants not to talk over each other.

42. During the cross examination testimony of one of the plaintiffs, Lucy M. Gnazzo, counsel for the plaintiffs, Melissa Greevy, voiced an objection prompting the judge to make the following statement:

Folks, are we going to fight? Or are we going to get this information. I am taking a break because you folks can't get to a landing. It is not a difficult case. Get me facts and I will get you a decision. Please, step down. We are taking a break.

43. An audio recording produced with the use of microphones during this proceeding established that at times during the statement described above, the volume of the judge's voice was excessively loud, to the point of yelling.

44. While making the above statement, the judge threw his glasses onto his desk.

45. The conduct described above can be heard beginning at approximately 1:15:50 on the audio recording of the proceeding. (Exhibit 9.)

46. The audio recording of the proceeding is the best evidence of the volume of the judge's voice and his demeanor.

47. After making the above statement, the judge left the bench.

48. When the judge returned to the bench, attorney Brett Shaffer, who had been cross examining Ms. Gnazzo before the break in the proceedings, declined to ask any further questions of her.

Wingard v. Wingard

49. On October 3, 2018, Judge Placey was presiding over a custody proceeding in the matter of Kathryn Wingard v. Robert...