Ankle Monitors And Underwear

The Kentucky Supreme Court approved the removal of a circuit court judge

This matter involves an appeal from a ruling of the Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC), which charged and found Judge James “Jamie” Jameson guilty of seven counts of misconduct. The JCC ordered that Judge Jameson be permanently removed from office as a circuit judge for the 42nd Judicial Circuit.

For the reasons provided herein, we hold that the JCC failed to carry its burden of proof in relation to some, but not all, of the misconduct alleged under Counts I and III and that it failed to prove all allegations of misconduct under Counts IV, V, and VI. We further hold that based on the misconduct proven under Counts I, II, III, and VII, Judge Jameson’s removal from office was appropriate, but that the JCC does not have the authority to permanently remove a judge from office.

Ankle monitoring

The Articles [of Incorporation] stated that Judge Jameson was the CCB’s incorporator, registered agent, and one of three board members. The other two board members were Don Cherry, Judge Jameson’s father-in-law and Calloway County Fiscal Court member, and Dave Berndt, a local philanthropist that Judge Jameson met at the Kentucky Opry. The mailing address for the CCB’s principal office was the Marshall County Judicial Building, the location of Judge Jameson’s primary judicial chambers.

Resulted in complaints

This brings us to the JCC proceedings now before us. On June 21, 2021, a disgruntled participant in the [Community Corections Board]’s ankle monitoring program filed a judicial complaint against Judge Jameson.5 On October 15, 2021, the JCC held an informal hearing with Judge Jameson pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 4.170(2). Judge Jameson prepared a written statement for that informal hearing that addressed the judicial complaint and discussed, generally, his involvement with the CCB and the GPS program. A week after the informal hearing a second JCC complaint was filed by a different participant in the ankle monitoring program. After several months of further investigation, the JCC issued a notice of formal proceedings and charges and an amended notice of proceedings and charges on June 13, 2022, and July 21, 2022, respectively. Both the notice and the amended notice alleged the same four counts of misconduct related to the CCB, the Re-Life project, the ankle monitoring program, Judge Jameson’s courtroom conduct, acts of retaliation, and the solicitation of campaign contributions.

Affirmed findings

we hold that the JCC’s finding that Judge Jameson created the 42nd Circuit’s CCB for an improper purpose was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

More than theory

Moving away from theoretical and into what actually occurred, Judge Jameson was the CCB’s incorporator, was one of its three board members, and the CCB operated out of his judicial chambers. Based on his own statements to the fiscal courts, he clearly had an interest in having the CCB run the ankle monitoring program and wanted Track Group to be the ankle monitor services provider. Consequently, going before the fiscal courts in his capacity as a circuit court judge was inappropriate as he remained prohibited under Rule 3.2, Comment [2] from “using the prestige of office to advance [his] or others’ interests” and from “engaging in extrajudicial activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine [his] independence, integrity, or impartiality.” We therefore hold that the JCC’s finding that his appearances before the fiscal courts were unethical was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Bidding

It was undisputed that no other potential bidders were permitted to suggest specifications regarding the language of the RFP, nor were they able to review and edit the RFP prior to its issuance. Indeed, a representative from Ensite, one of the providers that had been providing ankle monitoring services to defendants, contacted Judge Jameson on March 4, 2019, prior to either of his fiscal court appearances, and expressed Ensite’s interest in continuing its ankle monitoring services for the counties and wanted to discuss “what the county might need to be included in a contract.”

…we agree with the JCC’s conclusion that Judge Jameson’s unethically interfered with a public bid. However, we disagree with the JCC’s conclusion that his conduct constituted “bid rigging” as that term is defined by the Kentucky Model Procurement Code.

Imposing ankle monitoring

it was undisputed that as a circuit court judge, Judge Jameson had the responsibility of deciding whether a defendant should be released on bond and whether a condition of that bond should include participation in GPS monitoring. Once he made that ruling, he would require qualifying defendants to enter into an agreement to pay the CCB, of which Judge Jameson was the president, incorporator, and one third of the board, for the privilege of using the ankle monitor. The JCC also presented evidence that, despite Judge Jameson presiding over cases where he ordered defendants to pay the CCB, he signed checks on behalf on the CCB that were distributed to, for example, Pickett, the Marshall and Calloway Sheriffs Offices, the Marshall County Detention Center, Marshall County 911, the Calloway County Fiscal Court, and Track Group. Although Judge Jameson was never accused of mishandling or misusing any CCB funds, the appearance of impropriety this process created was blatant and extreme and Judge Jameson himself conceded its impropriety.

Misconduct was found in the judge pressuring an attorney to file a bar complaint against an attorney.

Finally

The JCC last alleged under Count III that Judge Jameson engaged in two acts of retaliation. The circumstances surrounding these acts of retaliation are discussed in more detail under Count VII below which we hold was supported by clear and convincing evidence. For our purposes here, the evidence clearly demonstrated that, after a rumor began spreading concerning security footage of Judge Jameson walking around the Marshall County courthouse in his underwear, he engaged in acts of retaliation against two individuals in relation to that video.

One was a radio station manager; the other was head of courthouse security

JCC’s finding that Judge Jameson engaged in two acts of retaliation was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The video

The video, captured on February 11, 2022, at approximately 6:35 am, depicted Judge Jameson walking downstairs from his chambers to an employee entrance in a t-shirt, boxers, and socks. After a short interaction with his wife and two children at the employee entrance, he walked back up the stairs toward his office. A short time later one of the building’s janitors walked down the same flight of stairs. A rumor soon began to spread amongst courthouse employees about the judge walking around the courthouse in his underwear. This rumor eventually made its way to Marshall County Judicial Center Lead Court Security Sergeant Jeff Daniel. As head of security, one of Sergeant Daniel’s duties was to investigate unusual occurrences in the courthouse. He therefore pulled a copy of the video and brought it to the attention of his administration; it was determined that nothing criminal occurred. The rumor then spread, as rumors often do, beyond the walls of the courthouse and two open record requests were filed for access to the video. One request was filed by an individual from WPSD, a television station in Paducah, and the second was filed by WKMS, an MSU public radio station. Both of the requests were denied by AOC prior to April 11, 2022.

His conduct in response

we hold that the JCC proved by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Jameson committed the misconduct alleged under Count VII and violated Rule 1.1, Rule 1.2, and Rule 1.3.

Removal

To summarize, the evidence demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Jameson committed numerous, intentional, and varied acts of misconduct across four counts of misconduct. Under Count I, the JCC proved that Judge Jameson created the CCB in a manner and for a purpose that did not comply with the statutory mandates surrounding community corrections programs and boards; that he, or persons under his direct supervision, developed local rules and procedures concerning the operation of a pre-trial ankle monitoring program without the approval of the Chief Justice; that he made improper appearances before two legislative bodies; that he improperly interfered with and affected the fairness of a public bidding process; that he engaged in two acts of direct solicitation of donations to the Re-Life project; and that he submitted an application for grant money on behalf of the CCB for an improper purpose.

Under Count II, the JCC proved that Judge Jameson used at least one of his KCOJ employees to perform work for the CCB; that he received direct notifications for violation alerts and on more than one occasion issued arrest warrants upon receipt of a notice of violation report from an employee of his corporation; and that, in his capacity as judge, he ordered individuals to participate in an ankle monitoring program that in turn required participants to pay his nonprofit corporation for the privilege of using the ankle monitor while he was simultaneously involved with the corporation’s finances.

Under Count III, the JCC proved that Judge Jameson violated the doctrine of separation of powers by ordering defendants to participate in an ankle monitoring program in his judicial capacity and thereafter being an integral part of monitoring those defendants, a function that is traditionally exclusive to the executive branch; that he pressured an attorney who regularly practiced before him to file a bar complaint against another attorney that regularly practiced before him; and that he engaged in two acts of retaliation.

Finally, under Count VII, the JCC proved that Judge Jameson acted in a manner that did not promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, created the appearance of impropriety, and abused the prestige of his office to advance his personal interests by having a security officer reassigned from the Marshall County courthouse and by pressuring a radio station manager not to pursue a story about an embarrassing video of him.

A concurring opinion expressed concern about the misuse of the process for political purposes

Judge Jameson’s political opponent also repeatedly attacked Judge Jameson in her Facebook posts for being a horrible person and judge, giving various examples that she claimed proved he was a bully. She repeatedly referred to an incident in which she appeared before Judge Jameson as counsel for William McAlpin, regarding allegations that Judge Jameson committed misconduct in relation to exercising the judicial contempt power, as Judge Jameson was “threatening to put me on the jail line[.]” Jameson’s Exhibit 20. The civility normally present in most judicial races was noticeably lacking in her conduct.

VANMETER, C.J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:

I agree that the JCC sufficiently proved by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Jameson committed most of the misconduct alleged against him. I also agree that removal is an appropriate sanction. However, based upon my review of the record and my understanding of our ethical canons, I would find that the JCC met its burden with respect to two instances the majority found lacked sufficient support: (1) the solicitation of campaign “support” from attorney DeRenard and (2) instructing his judicial staff to violate the JCC subpoena.

(Mike Frisch)