A Review of the Judicial Conduct Commission - Utah State Legislature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. Conformity with the new ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct.2. Prompt and fair discipline for judges.3. Public confidence in the judiciary and in the judicial disciplinarysystem.4. Protection of the public and the judiciary.5. Independence of the judiciary.6. Establish a model for states to use as a resource to establishimproved judicial discipline systems.The Federal Judicial Conduct System Is Similar to State LevelSystems. The federal judicial conduct system differs from state systems inthat federal judges can only be removed from office through impeachmentby the House of Representatives and conviction by the U.S. Senate.Conduct violations and the mechanics of the federal system are, however,quite similar to state judicial conduct organizations. Sanctions forviolation of the canons, as with states, can include private or publicreprimand, private or public censure, stripping a judge of caseassignments, certifying disability, or requesting voluntary retirement.The federal judicialconduct system issimilar to statesystems.Complaints against federal judges are filed with the chief judge of thecourt of appeals in the circuit in which the alleged misconduct occurred.After reviewing the complaint, the chief judge either dismisses thecomplaint, concludes the proceeding if corrective action has been taken, orappoints a special committee.As with most state findings, most complaints are dismissed becausethe complaint is directly related to an appealable decision. If a complaintis not dismissed, a special committee is appointed to investigate the factsalleged in the complaint and file a written report with findings and arecommendation with the circuit judicial council. The council mayconduct any additional investigation it considers necessary. The judicialcouncil may dismiss the complaint or can take any one of a number ofcodified actions such as request that a judge voluntarily retire, becensured, or be reprimanded.As stated in 28 U.S.C. Section 372(7)(B)(ii), “the judicial councilshall promptly certify such determination [disposition], together with anycomplaint and a record of any associated proceedings, to the JudicialConference of the United States.” The complainant and the subject of acomplaint can petition the United States Judicial Conference for review ofany action taken by a circuit judicial council.– 6 – A Review of The Judicial Conduct Commission
The Judicial Conference can refer a complaint to the House ofRepresentatives for consideration of impeachment.Utah Follows National TrendIn 1971, Utah followed the national trend by creating an entity toreview complaints against judges. Section 38, 1971 Utah Laws 113,established a commission concerning judicial qualifications. Between1971 and 1983, the statute creating the commission had several minoradjustments. In 1984, the Constitutional Revision Commission renamedthe entity to the Judicial Conduct Commission as part of the revision ofthe Judicial Article of the Utah Constitution. The provision wasapproved by the voters in November of 1984 and became effective on July1, 1985.Utah’s JCC has beenin existence for over30 years and allowsfor judicial disciplineat a level appropriatefor the violation.The aim of the provision was to provide a specialized and flexiblemeans for investigating alleged misconduct and, ultimately, discipliningjudges at a level appropriate for the violation. This provision replaced theprior system that could only discipline judges with the threat oflegislatively initiated impeachment or removal from office. The provisionbecame Article VIII, Section 13 of the Utah Constitution whichestablished the Judicial Conduct Commission. Figure 1 details thecreation and authority of the JCC in the Utah Constitution.Office of the Utah Legislative Auditor General – 7 –
Page 1 and 2: Office of theLEGISLATIVE AUDITOR GE
Page 3 and 4: the consistency of sanctions, the t
Page 5: officers for high crimes, misdemean
Page 9 and 10: complaints filed against judges pri
Page 11 and 12: Figure 3 shows that since 1996, the
Page 13 and 14: forward more complaints than is don
Page 15 and 16: Worthen.” The court further reque
Page 17 and 18: formal charges to also decide wheth
Page 19 and 20: commission members wrote a dissenti
Page 21 and 22: to the Utah Code 78-8-102 and four
Page 23 and 24: The Legislaturecannot set properpro
Page 25 and 26: AppendicesOffice of the Utah Legisl
Page 27 and 28: Agency ResponseOffice of the Utah L
Page 29 and 30: Wayne L. Welsh, CPANovember 6, 2002
Page 31: Appendix C• House Bill 285, 2000

A Review of the Judicial Conduct Commission - Utah State Legislature

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?