Sheffield, Matter of

• Decision Date: 21 December 1984
• Citation: 465 So.2d 350
• Parties: In the Matter of Billy Joe SHEFFIELD, A Judge. 83-593.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 350

465 So.2d 350

In the Matter of Billy Joe SHEFFIELD, A Judge.

83-593.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 21, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1985.

Winn S.L. Faulk of Faulk, Newcomb & Newman, Dothan, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Ala. Atty. Gen., and Rosa H. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Judiciary Inquiry Commission, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of the Judiciary finding that Judge Billy Joe Sheffield, Circuit Judge of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, violated Canons 2 A, 2 B, 3 A(6), and 3 C(1) of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS

On September 29, 1983, the following letter to the editor appeared in The Abbeville Herald:

"Dear Editor:

"As a concerned mother of three children in Henry County, Alabama, I feel I must try to tell all the women in Henry and Houston Counties the type judicial system our counties have.

"We now have a circuit judge who finds justice in letting a man who has worked for seventeen years running a very prosperous clothing business, supporting himself, a wife and three children all of a sudden declare himself penniless and disabled to work.

"He feels justified in coming into office and changing another judge's decision. He says that a man can sign all of his resources over to another person, let that person handle his finances, give him money as he needs or wants it and not be liable of supporting his family.

"How can a judge find justice in this? Would he do this to his family and feel justified? Would he let his children sit down to a table with barely nothing to eat, try to take a bath and find the water has been cut off, go to the phone and find no dial tone because it also has been cut off? Would he also find justice in his child dropping out of school his senior year to get a job to try to support a family whose mother has cancer and can't work? If one man can commit such a crime and get away with it, why can't all men?

"Every woman in Henry and Houston Counties had better sit up and take notice of this situation. The next time it could be one of you.

"Connie Cox"

The letter referred to Circuit Judge Billy Joe Sheffield's ruling in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the petitioner Snead, having been jailed for failure to make child support and maintenance payments, was released from confinement. The author of the letter, Ms. Connie Cox, was a witness in the previous Snead divorce and child custody case. It is conceded that the letter, in certain material aspects, is factually incorrect.

After reading the published letter, Judge Sheffield found, and was influenced by, the following language from a publication entitled Bench Manual for Circuit Judges in Alabama:

"The constructive or indirect contempt is an act of disobedience or defiance committed, not in the presence of the court, but at a distance from the court. Indirect "The publication of a disrespectful article has been held to be constructive contempt."

contempt has been generally characterized as the act of disobeying or resisting process, intimidating the witness out of the presence of the court, or by the making of any false or grossly inaccurate report of any proceeding while the same is pending before the court. ...

The manual did not mention any limitation upon a court's authority to punish for indirect contempt. Specifically, the "clear and present danger" doctrine was not mentioned. Thus, on September 30, 1983, Judge Sheffield issued an order directing Ms. Cox to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court, and he set October 6, 1983, as the date for hearing the matter.

The evening before the hearing, Judge Sheffield received a telephone call from Danny Lewis, the state editor of the Dothan Eagle newspaper. Mr. Lewis identified himself to the judge and asked him certain questions about the pending contempt hearing. The judge explained to Mr. Lewis the meaning of constructive or indirect contempt and the possible sanctions for criminal and civil contempt. During the conversation, the judge also said, "The contempt speaks for itself. ... I think it's pretty obvious who she is talking about. Everybody in Abbeville knows what she is talking about. Just because she doesn't name any names doesn't lessen what's been done." Furthermore, the judge suggested to Mr. Lewis that "the article [had] false information in it," and that Mr. Lewis "might want to look at the libel laws; call an attorney."

At the contempt hearing the next morning, Ms. Cox's lawyer made a motion that Judge Sheffield recuse himself. The judge denied the motion. Following a factual inquiry, the judge asked defense counsel if Ms. Cox wished to submit any testimony in defense. She offered none. The judge found Ms. Cox in contempt of court and fined her $100. The judge denied defense counsel's motion to reconsider.

On the same morning of the hearing, an article written by Mr. Lewis and entitled "Woman Hauled to Court Over Letter to Editor," appeared in the morning edition of the Dothan Eagle. The article was based on Mr. Lewis's conversation with Judge Sheffield the night before and contained several of Judge Sheffield's statements. Although the newspaper was distributed at 6:00 a.m., neither Judge Sheffield nor Ms. Cox's lawyer had read or was aware of the article at the time the contempt hearing occurred.

On October 7, the day after the hearing, Judge Sheffield reconsidered ex mero motu his contempt ruling. After researching the law of contempt and the "clear and present danger" doctrine, the judge decided he had been in error in holding Ms. Cox in contempt. He drafted an order rescinding his contempt order and immediately notified Ms. Cox and her lawyer.

Judge Sheffield's erroneous legal ruling received considerable media publicity. At the contempt hearing itself, approximately fifty people were present in the courtroom. Adverse editorials, articles, and at least one cartoon appeared in such varied newspapers as The Montgomery Advertiser, The New York Times, The Birmingham News, The Bakersfield Californian, and The Syracuse Post Standard. Also, newspapers around Alabama received letters from all across the country criticizing the judge's ruling and related actions.

On November 28, 1983, the Judicial Inquiry Commission filed a complaint against Judge Sheffield. The complaint alleged twelve violations of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. For purposes of this appeal, the relevant alleged violations were:

Charge 1--Failure to abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in his court, Canon 3A(6);

Charge 3--Failure to disqualify himself where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, Canon 3C(1);

Charge 11--Failure to conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes Charge 12--Failure to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute, Canon 2B.

public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, Canon 2A; and

After a trial on the merits, the Court of the Judiciary issued the following order:

"This case having been this day heard in open Court and submitted for judgment upon the testimony, admissions and exhibits, and after consideration of same, the Court finds as follows:

"Mrs. Connie Cox was cited by Judge Billy Joe Sheffield for contempt of Court after publication of her letter to the editor of a local newspaper. Her letter criticizing the court appears to have been unfounded and factually incorrect. However, Judge Sheffield had no legal justification to charge her with contempt.

"Judge Sheffield improperly made an intemperate response to the letter of Mrs. Cox. His reaction was ill-advised and unjustified. He improperly initiated contempt proceedings which were scheduled to be heard before him.

"Canon 3A of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that he 'should abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding,' but he did in fact make comment to a journalist which became public.

"The Judge's public comment concerning the pending matter and the manner in which he proceeded therein reasonably subjected his impartiality to question (3C(1)) and tended to undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary (Canon 2A) and to bring the judicial office into disrepute (Canon 2B). Wherefore, Judge Sheffield is found guilty as charged in charges 1, 3, 11 and 12; and, as punishment therefor, Judge Sheffield is herewith suspended from the Office of the Circuit Judge of the 20th Judicial Circuit of Alabama, and such suspension to be without pay for a period of two months from this date."

Judge Sheffield appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part as to the finding of guilt. We affirm as to the punishment imposed.

OPINION

At the outset we set forth the relevant law and standard of review. The Court of the Judiciary found Judge Sheffield guilty of violating the following Canons of Judicial Ethics:

"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 at all times maintain the decorum and temperance befitting his office and should avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute.

"..."

"CANON 3

"A judge should perform the duties of his office impartially and diligently.

"The judicial activities of a judge take precedence over his other activities. His judicial duties include all the duties of his office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:

"A. Adjudicative Responsibilities:

"...

"(6) A judge should abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court, and should require...