Inquiry Concerning Baker, In re

Decision Date23 November 1988
Docket NumberNo. 59159,59159
Citation535 So.2d 47
PartiesIn Re Inquiry Concerning Dennis M. BAKER, Chancellor.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Luther T. Brantley, III, Jackson, for petitioner.

Richard T. Phillips, Smith, Phillips & Mitchell, Batesville, for respondent.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER and GRIFFIN, JJ.

GRIFFIN, Justice, for the Court:

On January 13, 1987, the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance (Commission) filed a formal complaint charging Dennis M. Baker, Chancellor, Place 1, Third Chancery District of Mississippi, with judicial misconduct in violation of Sec. 177A, Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended. The Comission found by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Baker had violated Canons 1, 2 A, 2 B and 7 B(1)(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges. These canons state:

CANON 1

A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should himself observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

CANON 2

A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All His Activities.

(A) A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) A judge should not allow his family, social, or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment. He should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him. He should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

CANON 7

A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity Inappropriate to His Judicial Office.

B. Campaign Conduct.

(1) A candidate, including an incumbent judge, for a judicial office that is filled either by public election between competing candidates or on the basis of a merit system election;

(a) should maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office, and should encourage members of his family to adhere to the same standards of political conduct that apply to him; ...

The Commission issued its "Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations" on March 11, 1988, recommending a public reprimand. While this Court commends the Commission for its diligence, we find that this case does not compel public reprimand.

The background of the charge against Judge Baker is long and arduous. Judge Baker was accused of wrongdoing by an attorney, Christian Goeldner. Goeldner was suspended from the practice of law for two years as a result of Judge Baker's report of unethical activities. Goeldner v. Miss. State Bar Ass'n., 525 So.2d 403 (Miss.1988).

These charges against Goeldner arose in 1984, from a bill submitted to the Conservator of Ms. Florence Middleton. Chancellor Baker did not allow the hourly fee originally charged by Goeldner. A subsequent bill showed "padded" hours at the lower fee which resulted in approximately the same charge.

Christian Goeldner's trial before the Tribunal for the Central Supreme Court District was held on April 10, 1986. At this trial, it was determined that Goeldner should be disbarred. This Court suspended Goeldner.

Twenty-three (23) charges were lodged by Goeldner against Chancellor Baker in March of 1986. These allegations were distributed to the Memphis Commercial Appeal by Goeldner, and published in that paper on March 1, 1986, contrary to Rule 4, Rules of Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance.

The Judicial Performance Commission investigated all of the Goeldner allegations. Of the twenty-three (23) charges levied by Goeldner against Judge Baker, twenty-one (21) were dismissed as totally groundless; the other two, after extensive hearing, were found insufficient to warrant public reprimand.

The investigation of the Goeldner allegations by the Judicial Performance Commission coincided with a contested election campaign for the post of Chancellor of the Third Chancery District, the post occupied by Judge Baker since 1978. (This election has been enjoined by the federal court). Judge Baker's opponent in the election was an attorney from Grenada, Mississippi. During the investigation of the Goeldner charges, an incident of alleged campaign impropriety was charged in Grenada County.

The campaign incident involved a phone call from Judge Baker to John Grantham on May 9, 1986.

John Grantham had been divorced in September of 1984. In this divorce, styled "Judy Boyd Grantham versus John Leland Grantham, Sr., Grenada County Chancery Court Cause No. 83 12 303," Dennis Baker was the presiding chancellor. The divorce itself was final at the time of the telephone call in question.

This divorce was not amicable, but had resulted in extensive litigation. As a result of the divorce the child of this marriage had experienced severe emotional problems. Chancellor Baker had personally attempted to resolve the conflict between John Grantham and his daughter on several occasions.

In March of 1986 a petition for modification of the divorce settlement was filed by John Grantham; Judy Grantham cross-filed. A hearing was held on these petitions on Friday, March 21, 1986. This hearing was not completed on that day, but was orally continued until June 4, after the scheduled election. The continued case was not docketed, however, and the only record of the continuance is in the transcript of the record.

The telephone call from Chancellor Baker was made while this cause was continued. The case was continued again in June and no action had been taken at the time of the hearing on Chancellor Baker's conduct.

Some time after May 9, 1986, the Judicial Performance Commission amended its charge to include the Grantham matter. Judge Baker cooperated fully in the investigation and proceedings before the Judicial Performance Commission.

When notified of the possible impropriety of the Grantham phone call, Judge Baker checked his personal files and found no file on Grantham. He then checked the court docket and found no Grantham matters pending. It was only after checking the transcript of the March hearing that Judge Baker found that the matter was still pending.

Judge Baker made an "Offer of Judgment" on August 28, 1987 to accept judgment entered by the Commission by way of private admonition or reprimand. This offer was declined. A panel consisting of three persons, Circuit Judge Arthur B. Clark, Jr., Chancellor John C. Love, Jr. and Elizabeth Powers, held hearings on September 21, 1987 and December 9, 1987, and issued its opinion on January 20, 1988. By a two-to-one vote, the panel concluded that Judge Baker's offenses were the result of poor judgment and poor communications, and that a private reprimand was in order. The two judges voted for a private reprimand. A copy of this "Committee Findings of Fact and Recommendation" was forwarded to Judge Baker.

On March 11, 1988, the Commission issued its final "Commission Findings of Fact and Recommendation." This document recommended a public reprimand and stated that the Comission by a five-to-two vote recommended public rather than private reprimand. It further stated that the minority favoring the private reprimand consisted of the two members of the designated panel who had initially recommended the private reprimand, Judges Clark and Love.

On May 2, 1988, while the record of the Commission's proceedings was being prepared for filing with the Supreme Court, Judge Baker filed with this Court a "Motion to Retain Confidentiality of Judge's Identity with Regard to Proposed Public Reprimand Pending Supreme Court Review." On May 24, 1988, by a vote of seven-to-two, the Motion to Retain Confidentiality of Judge's Identity Pending Supreme Court Review was denied.

On June 7, 1988, the record, findings of fact and recommendation were filed by the Commission with this Court. The recommendation of public reprimand, with Judge Baker identified by name, was promptly disseminated through the news media. Articles appeared in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, June 8, 1988; the Grenada Daily Sentinal Star, June 8, 1988; and the Jackson Clarion Ledger, June 8, 1988.

According to the Associated Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI) articles, reported in the Commercial Appeal and Daily Sentinal Star, respectively, the Commission's Executive Director talked with AP and UPI wire service reporters concerning the charges and recommendation. "The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance found ... said Brant Brantly, [sic] the Executive Director of the Commission." "The Commission voted 5 2 to recommend the reprimand, Brantly [sic] said." AP news article reported June 8, 1988, in the Commercial Appeal; "Executive Director Brant Brantley said the Commission found that while campaigning for re-election...." UPI news article reported in June 8, 1988 Daily Sentinal Star.

STANDARD BY WHICH A JUDGE IS TO BE JUDGED

The commentary to Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges, states:

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. He must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. He must therefore accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.

The Commission found that Judge Baker's conduct fails to conform to the high standard required of a judge and did not uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary but rather created an appearance of impropriety. While not disputing the Commission's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Mississippi Com'n of Judicial Performance v. Russell
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1997
    ...prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute." Id. at 1122 (quoting In re Inquiry Concerning Baker, 535 So.2d 47 (Miss.1988)). Moreover, this Court cited numerous decisions from our sister states which clarify the meaning language identical to......
  • Mississippi Com'n on Judicial Performance v. Dodds
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 8, 1996
    ...under influence convictions and 552 routine traffic convictions without reporting them to the Department of Public Safety); In Re Baker, 535 So.2d 47 (Miss.1988) (case where a judge called a litigant involved in a pending action soliciting his political A. THE MATTER OF GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH......
  • Miss. Com'n On Jud. Perf. v. Osborne
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2009
    ...formal complaint, and proceeded to an evidentiary hearing on this issue; however, the Commission did not do so. 7. In Gibson, we modified the Baker factors. Gibson, 883 So.2d at 1158 (citing Inquiry Concerning Dennis M. Baker, Chancellor, 535 So.2d 47, 54 (Miss. KITCHENS, Justice, Dissentin......
  • Mississippi Judicial Performance Com'n v. Walker
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1990
    ...prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute" in the case of In re Inquiry Concerning Baker, 535 So.2d 47 (Miss.1988): There is no simple, black-letter definition of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicia......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Fordham Urban Law Journal: twenty years of progress.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 30 No. 3, March 2003
    • March 1, 2003
    ...12 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 383,401-02 (1984) noted in 550 So. 2d 1074, 1076 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989); 14 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 353 (1986) noted in 535 So. 2d 47, 51 n.2 (Miss. 1988); 4 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 351, 362 (1976) noted in 498 So. 2d 814, 820 n.2 (Miss. 1986); 11 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 927 (1983) noted......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT