NCJ Number
58012
Journal
Popular Government Volume: 44 Issue: 3 Dated: (WINTER 1979) Pages: 42-44
Date Published
1979
Length
4 pages
Annotation
IN ITS 1977 REPORT, THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA SUMMARIZED THE ACTIVITIES FOR ITS FIRST 5 YEARS. THE COMMISSION HANDLED 215 COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES, REPRIMANDED 7 JUDGES, AND CENSURED 5.
Abstract
PARALLELING THOSE OF OTHER STATE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS, NORTH CAROLINA'S EXPERIENCES REVEALED THAT MOST OF THE COMPLAINTS EITHER CONCERNED LITIGATION RESULTS (AND THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO AN APPELLATE COURT) OR WERE TRIVIAL. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED IN ABOUT 25 PERCENT OF THE CASES; 15 COMPLAINTS WERE TERMINATED WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION, THE JUDGE ACCEPTED AN INFORMAL REPRIMAND IN 7 CASES, THE JUDGE RESIGNED DURING THE INVESTIGATION IN 7, AND 5 CASES REACHED THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR FORMAL CENSURE. IN 1978, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE REMOVAL OF A JUDGE, BUT THE COURT ISSUED A CENSURE INSTEAD. IN ONE CENSURE CASE, THE DISTRICT JUDGE WAS CHARGED FOR SIGNING JUDGMENTS AUTHORIZING LIMITED DRIVING PERMITS WITHOUT INQUIRY AS TO THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PERMITS WHEN THE FACTS DID NOT AUTHORIZE THIS ACTION, AND THIS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THE OTHER FOUR CASES INVOLVED BOTH WILLFUL MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. (GENERALLY DISPOSING OF CRIMINAL CHARGES OUT OF COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.) QUOTATIONS FROM BOTH THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS AND THE NORTH CAROLINA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND THE CENSURES. FOOTNOTES CONTAIN REFERENCES. (GLR)