Suspension Proposed For Former Judge

An Illinois Hearing Board has recommended a two-year suspension and until further order of a former judge

The allegations deemed admitted establish that Respondent made multiple false statements when he came before the Judicial Inquiry Board and Illinois Courts Commission in connection with his reversal of a guilty finding in a sexual assault case in order to circumvent the law requiring the defendant to serve a mandatory prison sentence. By making the false statements, Respondent violated Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c). In aggravation, Respondent made statements to the media that this disciplinary matter was politically motivated and a waste of time. (Adm. Exs. 1, 2).

Respondent has demonstrated a lack of respect for the Court and the disciplinary process through his refusal to participate in this proceeding and his comments to the media. This is particularly troubling given his position as a former judge, and we find that it constitutes substantial aggravation. Based on the serious misconduct and significant aggravating factors, we conclude that a suspension of two years and until further order of the Court is warranted. We considered as mitigation that Respondent has no prior discipline, but that does not lead us to recommend a different sanction.

Respondent had been removed from his judicial office by order of the Illinois Courts Commission

On January 26, 2023 the Judicial Inquiry Board filed a three-count amended complaint with the Illinois Courts Commission, charging respondent with willful misconduct, conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice and that brought the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 61, Canon 1; Rule 62, Canon 2(A); and Rule 63, Canon 3(A)(1), (A)(9). In summary form, the amended complaint alleged that on January 3, 2022, respondent reversed a guilty finding in an underlying criminal case to circumvent the law requiring the defendant to serve a mandatory prison sentence. The amended complaint further alleged that on January 12, 2022, respondent retaliated against a prosecutor in open court by ordering the prosecutor to leave the courtroom because the prosecutor had “liked” a post on social media that was critical of respondent’s reversal of that guilty finding. Finally, the amended complaint alleged that on April 8, 2022, respondent gave false and misleading testimony before the Judicial Inquiry Board when he testified that his reason for the reversal was based on the lack of evidence presented in the criminal case and was not to circumvent the law requiring the imposition of a mandatory prison sentence upon the defendant.

Respondent drew national attention with comments in reversing the guilty finding

This is what’s happened when parents do not exercise their parental responsibilities, when we have people, adults, having parties for teenagers, and they allow coeds and female people to swim in their underwear in their swimming pool. And, no, underwear is not the same as swimming suits. It’s just – they allow 16-year-olds to bring liquor to a party. They provide liquor to underage people, and you wonder how these things happen. Well, that’s how these things happen. The Court is totally disgusted with that whole thing.

And, Mr. Clinton, you’re going to be released. Go home if you still have one.

Finding

we reject respondent’s claim that he reversed his guilty finding because the State purportedly failed to meet its burden of proof. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from respondent’s statements on January 3, 2022 is that respondent reversed his guilty finding to intentionally circumvent the mandatory sentencing law.

Credibility

For all the reasons previously discussed, we find respondent’s testimony was inconsistent, misleading, and untruthful on multiple points. We further find respondent’s claim that he reversed his guilty finding based on his reconsideration of the evidence and his conclusion that the State had failed to prove its case to be a subterfuge – respondent’s attempt to justify the reversal post hoc. We do not find it credible that respondent thought Clinton was not guilty. Rather, we find respondent disagreed with the law that required the imposition of a prison sentence under the circumstances. Respondent’s conduct between October 15, 2021 and January 3, 2022, his spoken words at the sentencing hearing, and the January 3, 2022 order are clear and convincing evidence that respondent reversed his guilty finding to thwart and circumvent the law that required him to impose a mandatory prison term upon Clinton.

Removal

To begin, respondent’s misconduct was not an isolated incident, but rather included several acts that each violated the Code. His misconduct spanned nearly two years, beginning on January 3, 2022, when he reversed his guilty finding, not because the State failed in its burden of proof, but to circumvent the mandatory sentencing law he was required to follow. Shortly thereafter, respondent retaliated against Jones by having him removed from the courtroom, and in April 2022, respondent testified falsely before the Board. In November 2023, at the hearing before this Commission, respondent gave false testimony under oath a second time. The nature and extent of this misconduct is egregious. Respondent intentionally circumvented the law to satisfy his personal belief as to what constituted a just sentence, resulting in his reversal of a criminal defendant’s conviction. Respondent subsequently acted out in anger when he learned Jones had liked a social media post that he believed was critical of him. Respondent improperly retaliated against Jones by ordering him out of the courtroom. Then, to mask his subversion of the law, Respondent crafted a false justification for the reversal of his guilty finding, which he submitted to the Board in writing and later testified to under oath before two tribunals. Such intentional, dishonest, and extensive misconduct demonstrates respondent’s utter disregard for the truth, the judiciary, and our justice system…

Although respondent did not tangibly benefit from his misconduct, he misused his position as a judge in a criminal case to satisfy his own sense of justice by refusing to faithfully apply the law.

We also feel compelled to comment on respondent’s statement on January 3, 2022 that “these things happen” when teenagers engage in underage drinking and “coeds and female people” swim in their underwear. These types of comments, coupled with the fact that respondent reversed himself, could give the impression to the public that respondent did not believe Clinton deserved to go to prison for sexual assault because the female victim was voluntarily intoxicated and swam in her underwear.

(Mike Frisch)