Outside The Record

An agreed censure of a county court judge is described in a news release of the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has determined that William A. Carter, a Judge of the Albany County Court, should be censured for engaging in an ex parte communication and failing to report cases pending longer than 60 days on his required quarterly reports of pending cases.

Judge Carter agreed to the censure.

In January 2018, Judge Carter presided over a murder trial in which the defense counsel moved to preclude certain evidence pertaining to the defendant’s phone conversations from jail. Without telling the District Attorney or defense counsel, Judge Carter called and spoke to a deputy sheriff at the county jail about how inmates are notified that their phone calls are being monitored. He then relied on that conversation in deciding the defense motion, again without informing either side of his ex parte conversation with the deputy sheriff.

Also, from April 2017 to September 2019, Judge Carter failed to report on his quarterly reports that he had several cases pending decision longer than 60 days, as required. The judge amended his reports in September 2019 as a result of the Commission’s inquiry.

Priors

Judge Carter was publicly censured by the Commission in 2006 for, among other things, coming off the bench and physically confronting a defendant appearing in his courtroom. (http://cjc.ny.gov/Determinations/C/carter.htm.)

Judge Carter was also privately cautioned by the Commission twice: in 2004 for failing to disqualify himself in arraignments of unrepresented defendants, notwithstanding that the complaining witness and alleged victim was his co-judge, and again in 2012 for appearing as a guest of honor at a fundraising event for a civic organization.

From the earlier censure involving an incarcerated criminal defendant

Respondent allowed the defendant to argue his position, and after the defendant became agitated and said he no longer wanted to participate in the proceeding because he claimed it was illegal, respondent became angry and, without adjourning the proceeding, abruptly removed his glasses, got up from the bench, removed his judicial robe and dropped it to the floor and proceeded rapidly in the direction of the defendant, in a manner indicating his purpose was to confront the defendant. Respondent was upset at the time of the incident and does not recall what he was thinking at the time he proceeded toward the defendant, but agrees that his conduct indicated his intent to confront the defendant.

One witness present in the courtroom heard respondent say of or to the defendant, “You want a piece of  me?” Respondent does not recall making this statement, because he was upset at the time of the incident, but he does not deny making the statement.

The commission’s determination may be found here. (Mike Frisch)