In re Tidd
Citation | 181 A.3d 14 |
Decision Date | 04 April 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 3 JD 16,3 JD 16 |
Parties | IN RE: David W. TIDD, Former Magisterial District Judge, Magisterial District 03–2–04, Third Judicial District, Northampton County |
Court | Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania |
The Judicial Conduct Board (Board) filed a Complaint against Former Judge David W. Tidd on August 26, 2016. Following a seven day trial, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law during July and August, 2017. On December 15, 2017, this Court found that Former Judge Tidd violated Rule 2.16(B) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges (MDJ Rules). MDJ Rule 2.16(B) provides that a judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a magisterial district judge or lawyer. Any violation of the Canons of Judicial Conduct or MDJ Rules results in an automatic derivative violation of Article V, § 17 (b) of our Constitution, which requires that judges shall be governed by rules or canons prescribed by the Supreme Court.
On March 16, 2018, a sanction hearing was held. Upon motion of Former Judge Tidd's Counsel, the testimony of the character witnesses who testified at trial was incorporated into the sanction phase of these proceedings. Former Judge Tidd filed a Sanction Memorandum on March 15, 2018, advocating that a reprimand was an appropriate sanction for the conduct giving rise to the violations. He also exercised his right of allocution. The Board did not call any witnesses.
In substance, we determined that Former Judge Tidd's conduct in angrily confronting his judicial staff constituted retaliation under MDJ Rule 2.16(B). In our Opinion we noted that this is the first occasion where we have been called upon to determine the contours of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Canons and MDJ Rules.1 See In re David W. Tidd, 175 A.3d 1151, 1155–1160 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2017). We concluded that MDJ Rule 2.16(B) is violated when a judge takes action that would deter a reasonable person from pursuing a complaint or cooperating with the Board. Importantly, the conduct is evaluated using an objective standard and no intent to interfere with a disciplinary investigation is required. Id.
In determining what sanction will be imposed for a violation of the MDJ Rules or Code of Judicial Conduct we are guided by the jurisprudence of our Supreme Court, and also from our prior decisions. We have adopted ten nonexclusive factors that are considered in arriving at a sanction. In re Roca, 151 A.3d 739, 741 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016), aff'd, ––– Pa. ––––, 173 A.3d 1176 (2017).
In arriving at a sanction, we are cognizant that the sanction we impose is intended not only to punish the violator, but also to restore public confidence in our judicial system and provide notice to other judges about how violations of the Canons and MDJ Rules are treated by this Court.
The ten factors and our analysis of each in this case include:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Jennings
...in cases where, as here, the offending conduct has not previously received scrutiny by our prior decisions.In In re David W. Tidd, 181 A.3d 14 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2018), we noted that although our cases are very fact-specific, we are cognizant of the need for some amount of proportionality, to......
-
In re Shaw, 5 JD 16
...the evolving precedent of this Court and the contemporary standards of public confidence in our judicial system. See In re Tidd , 181 A.3d 14, 17 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2018).1 Many commentators have suggested that such actions are therefore outside of any judicial immunity provided by ...
-
In re Maruszczak
...proceedings. Such misconduct warrants a sanction nonetheless.Among the prior cases that provide some guidance is In re Tidd , 181 A.3d 14 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. 2018) wherein a magisterial district judge yelled at his staff when he found out they had filed a disciplinary complaint against him wit......
-
In re Muth
...sanction will be imposed for a violation of the MDJ Rules or Code of Judicial Conduct, ten primary factors are considered. In re Tidd, 181 A.3d 14 (2018). "The CJD routinely considers ten non-exclusive factors in fashioning an appropriate sanction: (1) whether the conduct is an isolated eve......