Naruecha Jenthaisong | Time | Getty Images
A federal judge has been punished for sleeping in his chambers with a senior law enforcement official, attending a joint political event and lying to senior judges investigating the allegations, a disciplinary committee has revealed.
But the identity of the judge and the district court in which they live are being kept secret by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the United States Judicial Council in its decision issued Friday, previously reported by Law360 and Reuters.
The committee, made up of seven judges, agreed with the findings of judicial misconduct issued in February by the 11th Circuit Judicial Council, the appeals court circuit that handles cases from the US District Courts in Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
The 11th Circuit imposed sanctions on the judge, who agreed, including ordering them to write letters of apology to the six former law clerks who were interviewed in the investigation; prior service as a chief justice in the state in which they reside; and to refrain from sitting on any committee of the Judicial Conference.
A spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the US Courts declined to comment on the ruling, which confirmed those fines, and withheld the judge’s name.
According to the decision, William Pryor, the chief judge of the 11th Circuit, in September, was notified of the complaint against the unnamed judge based on a letter received by the chief judge in the district.
“The information in the Chief District Judge’s memorandum came from one of the judges’ law clerks,” the ruling said.
“The law clerk reported that, on several occasions, the judge had sex with a uniformed police officer in the chambers during work hours within earshot of the judge’s staff,” the ruling said.
“The law clerk also reported that the trial judge failed to educate the law clerks and organize their work, showed visible anger toward the law clerks, including yelling and cursing, and, at one point, told the staff that the judge had ‘too many martinis the night before’ at a District Attorney’s party.”
After the judge in charge of the complaint was briefed by the chief circuit judge, they sent a response denying the allegations, calling them “outrageous” and “baseless,” the ruling said.
A special committee was then appointed to investigate the allegations, which included interviewing six of the judge’s clerks and reviewing documents, security footage and visitor access.
It also included “examination of a room of the same structure to determine whether law clerks sitting outside can hear sounds inside; arranging for a statutory examination of a bed pillow in the judge’s chambers,” the decision said.
A special committee in December issued a report that found the judge “engaged in judicial misconduct by … engaging in an extramarital relationship with a senior law enforcement official and having sex in the judges’ chambers during office hours,” the ruling said.
The committee also found that the judge erred by attending a campaign event for the district attorney, and by making false statements to Chief District Judge Pryor and a district court judge “that are material to the investigation.”
“Specifically, the trial judge denied having sex in court and denied knowledge of the alleged allegations,” the ruling said.
The committee found that the matter dragged on for two years and was done with a senior officer in the police department.
“On many occasions, during business hours, a judge and a police officer engaged in sexual intercourse in the judge’s chamber within earshot of the judge’s staff,” the ruling said.
“Furthermore, during the course of this matter, the police department was involved in many criminal and civil cases that were being tried in this region,” according to the decision.
The judge did not disclose the matter to any other judge, staff or litigants.
“The judge of the matter could have been assigned to handle a case where the police officer or the police department has an interest in it, which would have caused a conflict or appeared to be a conflict,” said the decision.
“Although the special committee did not find an instance of a presiding judge in a case where a police officer or police department was a party or witness, the special committee found that this was due to ‘happening’ rather than the trial judge’s efforts to minimize any potential conflict.”
The matter put the judge “at risk of fraud or impeachment,” violated ethics rules, “demonstrated a serious lack of judgment,” and created an “uncomfortable and troubling” atmosphere for his staff, the ruling said.
The decision also stated that the special committee that recommended sanctions against the judges “ultimately decided not to recommend a more severe sanction because: (1) the judge in the case prepared false statements and then came forward to the special committee; (2) it was unlikely that the judge in the case would engage in similar misconduct in the future, as the judge in the case had severed ties with the law enforcement officer and made to avoid political events and (3) made to avoid future events; he has done exemplary service at court.”
“The special committee explained that although it was ‘deeply concerned’ about the conduct of the judge, the subject judge ‘showed a strong tendency to rehabilitate himself and continue to work diligently in the judiciary,'” the decision noted.
