In re Williams
| Decision Date | 04 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-0878 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: THE HONORABLE C. CARTER WILLIAMS, Judge of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted: February 8, 2023
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING Complaint Nos. 78-2021 81-2021, and 12-2022
Teresa A. Tarr, Esq. Brian J. Lanham, Esq. Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Charleston, West Virginia Counsel for West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission
J Michael Benninger, Esq. Benninger Law, PLLC Morgantown, West Virginia
Timothy R. Linkous, Esq. Linkous Law, PLLC Morgantown, West Virginia Counsel for Respondent
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
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." Syllabus, In the Matter of Gorby, 176 W.Va. 16, 339 S.E.2d 702 (1985).
2. "The Supreme Court of Appeals will make an independent evaluation of the record and recommendations of the Judicial [Hearing] Board in disciplinary proceedings." Syllabus Point 1, W.Va. Judicial Inquiry Comm'n v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 233, 271 S.E.2d 427 (1980).
3. " Syllabus Point 1, Matter of Starcher, 202 W.Va. 55, 501 S.E.2d 772 (1998).
4. "Always mindful of the primary consideration of protecting the honor, integrity, dignity, and efficiency of the judiciary and the justice system, this Court, in determining whether to suspend a judicial officer with or without pay, should 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." Syllabus Point 3, In re Cruickshanks, 220 W.Va. 513, 648 S.E.2d 19 (2007).
The Honorable C. Carter Williams has been a circuit court judge in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit since 2017. These judicial disciplinary proceedings against him were initiated after he was stopped for a traffic violation in July 2021 by an officer of the Moorefield Police Department, during and after which Respondent identified himself as a judge, contacted the officer's supervisors, including the Chief of Police and the Mayor, and made coercive and retaliatory comments. The West Virginia Judicial Hearing Board (JHB) concluded that Respondent's conduct violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct and warrants suspension without pay for three months (in the form of a one-year suspension, with nine months stayed), and other sanctions.
Judicial Disciplinary Counsel (JDC) objects to the recommended sanction, contending that the JHB should have found additional violations and that the sanction is too lenient. Respondent also objects, arguing that the JHB's conclusions were not supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the JHB failed to give mitigating factors due consideration. As explained in detail below, we conclude that a six-month suspension without pay is more appropriate to address Respondent's conduct and agree with and impose the JHB's recommendation that Respondent comply with monitoring by the West Virginia Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) for two years, that Respondent be censured and fined $5,000, and that Respondent be required to pay certain costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings.
While JDC and Respondent both generally agree to the underlying facts summarized below, they have diametrically opposed interpretations of those facts. For our purposes, it is challenging that both parties have selectively cited the record to support their competing interpretations, such as seizing on the particular verbiage used in a sworn interview statement, versus what was sworn by affidavit, versus what was said in live testimony, and putting blinders on to the rest. As a result, JDC's argument has not responded to Respondent's arguments and citations to testimony and Respondent is equally unresponsive to JDC's arguments and citations to testimony.
This is a factually complex case because so many individuals and their impressions of Respondent's conduct are involved. And their testimony to the JHB varied either in inconsistent, or incomplete respects, from their earlier, sworn statements. Having conducted an independent review of the record, the following iteration of facts is a fair representation of what the record before us shows as an overall picture and sequence of events and impressions.
Respondent was elected circuit court judge for the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit (Hampshire, Hardy, and Pendleton counties) in 2016 and took the bench in January 2017. In February 2020, then-Chief Justice Armstead assigned a senior status judge to preside temporarily over Respondent's docket to permit Respondent to see to medical issues. Respondent returned to work in May 2020.
On July 11, 2021, Respondent visited an ice cream shop with his family and then left the shop alone, in his own vehicle. He returned to the shop because he believed he had forgotten his cell phone there but was unable to locate it. While driving home, he heard something drop and, assuming it to be the missing cell phone, picked it up and transferred it from his left to his right hand while his hands were on the wheel. Officer Deavonta Johnson observed Respondent with the phone in his hand on the steering wheel and initiated a traffic stop close to 7:30 p.m. Body cam footage shows that Officer Johnson approached the vehicle, and before Officer Johnson spoke, Respondent asked, "[w]hat's the problem?" Officer Johnson greeted Respondent, "How you doing, sir, . . . the reason I'm stopping you is . . ." but was interrupted when Respondent said "I'm Judge Williams, and, I don't . . . why are you stopping me?"
Respondent was visibly agitated and attempted to explain to Officer Johnson that he had just picked the phone up from between the door and the seat and was only holding it, not using it. Respondent became more agitated as the conversation continued, and Officer Johnson asked Respondent why he was screaming at him. The situation escalated when Respondent insisted that he had not done anything wrong and initially refused to provide his license and registration. Respondent then stated several times that the police are often on their cell phones and not on official business, asking Officer Johnson, "you're never on yours?" in an angry tone. Officer Johnson again asked why Respondent was yelling. Respondent then provided his license and registration, his hands and body noticeably shaking.[2] Respondent then motioned for Officer Johnson to go back to his vehicle and said
When Officer Johnson asked why he was shaking, Respondent answered "I'm irritated because you pulled me over for no reason." Respondent again attempted to explain that he only had the phone in his hand and likened it to holding a cup. Respondent then told Officer Johnson, Respondent stated he would take the ticket up to the town office and take it to trial, then said "it's ridiculous, what you're doing." He repeated that officers are on their phones and do not get pulled over, then stated Respondent repeated that he had been pulled over for no reason, to which Officer Johnson responded that he had pulled him over because he had a cellphone in his hand.[3] Respondent said several more times for Officer Johnson to give him a ticket and motioned for Officer Johnson to return to his vehicle.
Officer Johnson then returned to his vehicle. There, he confirmed that Respondent's license had expired a few months earlier. While in the vehicle, Officer Johnson received a call from his supervisor, Lieutenant Melody Burrows, whom Respondent had called once Officer Johnson returned to his vehicle. Lt. Burrows, in later testimony and sworn statements, elucidated that on the call Respondent told her that her "boy" had pulled him over, calling Officer Johnson "your boy" several times. Officer Johnson is African-American. Lt. Burrows testified that she knew he was referring to Officer Johnson because she does the scheduling and knew he was the only officer on duty in her department that evening. Lt. Burrows testified that Respondent did not ask her to direct Officer Johnson not to give a ticket, stating "[Respondent] was willing to take the ticket to begin with[,]" but the inference she got from the telephone call was that he did not want the ticket. According to Officer Johnson's testimony (and as can be seen on the body cam footage), Lt. Burrows then called him and asked if Officer Johnson had already written the ticket and if he had not, not to write...
To continue reading
Request your trial