In re Reese
Decision Date | 31 July 2018 |
Docket Number | Judicial Disabilities Docket No. 2, Sept. Term, 2017 |
Citation | 461 Md. 421,193 A.3d 187 |
Parties | In the MATTER OF the Honorable Mary C. REESE, Judge of the District Court of Maryland FOR HOWARD COUNTY, TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Kendra Randall Jolivet, Esquire (Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities), Baltimore, for Petitioner.
Argued by Andrew Jay Graham, Esquire (Louis P. Malick, Esquire, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD), for Respondent.
Amicus Curiae - Maryland Circuit Judges Association for Respondent: Kevin B. Collins, Esquire, Beth S. Brinkmann, Esquire and Ryan O. Mowery, Esquire (Covington & Burling LLP One City Center, 850 Tenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20001)
Argued Before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.
In this judicial disabilities case, we examine the decision of the Commission on Judicial Disabilities ("the Commission"), which determined that the Honorable Mary C. Reese ("Judge Reese") committed sanctionable conduct during the course of presiding over a peace order hearing. Maryland Rule 18-401 defines "sanctionable conduct" as "misconduct while in office, the persistent failure by a judge to perform the duties of the judge's office, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice." Additionally, Maryland Rule 18-401 provides that "[a] judge's violation of any of the provisions of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct promulgated by Title 18, Chapter 100 may constitute sanctionable conduct."
In August 2014 and February 2015, Judge Reese presided over two hearings at which the petitioners sought a protective order and a peace order, respectively. Judge Reese's conduct during these hearings formed the basis for complaints of judicial misconduct. Investigative Counsel charged Judge Reese with violating multiple rules of judicial conduct. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Commission concluded that Judge Reese committed sanctionable conduct in the February 2015 peace order hearing and recommended to this Court that she attend training. Judge Reese filed exceptions. On March 6, 2018, we heard oral argument and, on March 22, 2018, issued a per curiam order, disagreeing with the Commission's conclusion and dismissing the matter with prejudice. We were not persuaded that the judge's exercise of judicial discretion constituted sanctionable conduct or violated Rule 18-101.1 or 18-102.5(a). We shall now explain why.
Judge Reese has served as an Associate Judge of the District Court of Maryland, District Ten, which includes both Howard and Carroll counties, since 2006. On July 31, 2015, the Women's Law Center of Maryland ("the Women's Law Center") filed a complaint against Judge Reese with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities ("the Commission"). The Women's Law Center is a statewide non-profit organization that has operated the Protective Order Representation and Advocacy Project, a program providing direct legal services for victims of domestic violence, for over twenty years.1 The crux of the Women's Law Center complaint involves Judge Reese's conduct overseeing protective and peace orders, and cites three cases for reference: Lauren M. Lewis v. Richelieu W. James (Case No. 1002SP004962014), Patricia Stein v. Benton Stephen Lecuyer (Case No.1002SP001402015), and Biden v. Kramer (Case No. 1002SP005512014)2 . In addition to the Women's Law Center complaint, two of the individuals referenced therein, Lauren M. Lewis and Patricia Stein, also filed complaints against Judge Reese.3 Although the complete transcripts for the Lewis and Stein matters were accepted into evidence as joint exhibits before the Commission, the Lewis matter was dismissed by the Commission for insufficient evidence.
On February 18, 2015, Judge Reese presided over the matter of Patricia Stein v. Benton Stephen Lecuyer , Case No. 1002SP001402015. Patricia Stein filed a Petition for Peace Order on behalf of her seventeen-year-old granddaughter, Tricia Hiltz. In presenting an ex parte petition for a peace order under Md. Code (Repl. Vol. 2013), § 3-1504 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings,4 ("Cts. & Jud. Proc."), Ms. Stein alleged that a former boyfriend, Mr. Lecuyer, attacked her granddaughter. The relationship between Ms. Hiltz and Mr. Lecuyer ended two weeks before Mr. Lecuyer tracked her by phone to a friend's home. Upon discovering Ms. Hiltz inside the home, Mr. Lecuyer assaulted her and her friend, resulting in visible bruising around Ms. Hiltz's eyes. During the hearing, Ms. Hiltz indicated that she blocked Mr. Lecuyer from her phone, and she had not spoken to him since the incident. The transcript of Judge's Reese's examination of Ms. Hiltz, reflected the following:
As the record reflects, Judge Reese found insufficient evidence that the abuse was likely to occur in the future, but advised that if another incident occurred, Ms. Stein and Ms. Hiltz could return to the court to seek relief. An appeal of the denial of the peace order was filed in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, but later dismissed after the circuit court determined that Ms. Hiltz was not eligible for a peace order.
Based on the complaints filed, the Commission filed a Statement of Charges on April 16, 2017.
In an attempt to describe the nature of the sanctionable conduct, the charges reflected the following:
Judge Reese engaged in behavior that failed to promote public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartially of the judiciary. Judge Reese was not performing her duties impartially and fairly and was manifesting bias or prejudice regarding the litigants appearing before her. In the Lecuyer case, Judge Reese afforded Petitioner a mere four (4) minute hearing before denying her requested relief after a few short inquiries, both undermining public confidence in the judiciary and denying her the right to be heard. Judge Reese's behavior provides evidence that [she] engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the proper administration of justice in Maryland Courts[.]
As a result, Judge Reese was charged with violating the following rules of the Maryland Code of the Judicial Conduct:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Russell
...for determining whether a judge has competently, diligently, and promptly performed his or her duties. See Matter of Reese , 461 Md. 421, 441, 193 A.3d 187, 199 (2018) (holding that a judge did not violate Md. Rule 18-102.5 when she performed her judicial duties by appreciating the facts pr......
-
In re Russell
...for determining whether a judge has competently, diligently, and promptly performed his or her duties. See Matter of Reese, 461 Md. 421, 441, 193 A.3d 187, 199 (2018) (holding that a judge did not violate Md. Rule 18-102.5 when she performed her judicial duties by appreciating the facts pre......
-
Green v. State
...was "established as an independent body pursuant to Article IV of the Maryland Constitution." Matter of Reese for Howard Cty., Tenth Judicial Circuit , 461 Md. 421, 436, 193 A.3d 187 (2018) ; see Md. Const. art. IV, § 4A. The Commission is comprised of eleven people, appointed by the Govern......