A federal judge engaged in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking police officer, including having sexual intercourse in the judge's chambers within hearing distance of staff, and initially lied about the misconduct, according to a court system investigation. Despite the findings, the judge remains on the bench after receiving a 'private reprimand.'
Investigation Details
The Judicial Council of the 11th Judicial Circuit, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, issued a February order imposing the private reprimand. The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States affirmed that order last week. The judge's name and specific court location within the circuit were not disclosed.
Federal judges are appointed for life but can face disciplinary actions such as censure, public or private reprimands, and temporary withholding of cases. Removal requires impeachment by Congress.
The investigation revealed that the judge and the officer had sexual intercourse in chambers during business hours, audible to staff. The judge also attended a partisan political event. Initially, the judge called the allegations 'outrageous' and denied them.
Decision and Reasoning
In opting for a private reprimand, the committee considered that the judge recanted her false statements, ended the relationship, and committed to avoiding future partisan political events. The committee also noted the judge's 'otherwise exemplary service to the court.'
'Although the special committee is deeply troubled by the conduct in which the judge engaged, the Subject Judge has demonstrated a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service to the judiciary,' the committee's report stated.
Lester Tate, a lawyer who often defends Georgia judges facing misconduct, described the punishment as a 'slap on the wrist.' He expressed shock at the lack of a more severe penalty for the false statements made during the investigation, emphasizing the importance of honesty for those who sit in judgment of others.
Background of the Case
The investigation began after a law clerk reported the judge's sexual activity with the officer on multiple occasions in the office. Allegations also included improper supervision of clerks and instances of yelling and cursing at staff.
Chief Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit asked the judge to respond. The judge denied all allegations and speculated that the clerk may have invented them in retaliation for being required to work in the office. Pryor then appointed a special committee to investigate.
The committee reviewed logs and security footage showing the officer frequently visiting the judge's chambers in uniform around lunchtime. Six clerks recalled seeing someone matching the officer's description, with three remembering overhearing what may have been sexual activity. Three clerks also reported that after a hearing, the judge declined lunch with interns, citing too many martinis consumed the night before at a primary election victory party for a district attorney friend.
Clerks described an 'eggshell culture' and insufficient guidance from the judge, though the committee found no evidence of abusive behavior. The judge ultimately admitted to the extramarital sexual relationship but denied mistreating staff. She acknowledged attending a 'mixer' of former employees of a district attorney's office but said it was separate from the victory party.
As part of the reprimand, the judge agreed to write apology letters to six former law clerks, not to accept the position of chief judge when eligible, and to refrain from serving on any Judicial Conference committee.
