***image1***
Jim Noel keeps the judiciary in line.
SFR: When did you become executive director of the Judicial Standards Commission?
JN:
January 2004 is when I started.
What happened with judicial misconduct prior to 1968 [when the JSC was formed]?
One way that misconduct-or perceived misconduct-on the part of judges was handled is through the vote, either through retention or the political elective process. Another process that was available is impeachment. But impeachment itself can be a cumbersome, lengthy and political process. We are an apolitical organization. The commissioners don't take politics into consideration when they review conduct. They look at purely if the conduct was in violation of the Code [of Judicial Conduct].
Do allegations generally come from the legal community?
It comes from all over. It could be a litigant, an incarcerated defendant, an attorney; it could be another judge, police, public officials, victims-it could even be an organization or an institution.
Are things busier than usual for the JSD?
I think we have a great judiciary in this state. We really do. We've got individuals who conduct themselves with the highest level of integrity and with the highest standards of conduct. I want to make sure I preface anything I say with respect to that…We don't have the 2005 report done yet but I have some of the preliminary stats. These are our [fiscal year] '05 numbers: We received 126 written verified complaints, 51 written unverified and 1,462 inquiries. You were asking about increased workload and this stat [overall complaints and inquiries] actually went up from '04…
By 34 percent it looks like…
Yeah, but I think what is key about this is that the number of verified complaints actually went down. The actual cases that go somewhere have remained fairly constant…that said, it doesn't mean that we don't do our initial work on every inquiry that comes in the door.
By 'go somewhere' you mean the [State] Supreme Court?
Anywhere from 80 to 90 percent of these inquiries we receive get dismissed outright once we do the initial investigation on it and present the material to the commission. There are judges out there that don't even know that there has been a complaint filed against them and that is rooted in the confidentiality aspect of our work.
So how often do JSD cases get to the Supreme Court?
If you look at FY '05, it's 20. You have 12 informal resolutions, five informal and three departures.
So from the original complaints only 20 reached resolution in the Supreme Court?
It wasn't even that many. Twelve were informal, so there was actually only eight.
Could you elaborate on the confidentiality aspect of the JSC's work.
The [state] constitution says that all matters before the commission shall be confidential and remain so until they're found out in the State Supreme Court…For instance, many of the complaints we receive are from incarcerated criminal defendants who are mad because the judge gave them six years instead of three. Those are instances-if it's a discretionary call on the part of the judge-that are not necessarily violations of the Code. If the judge said, 'I'm going to give you six years instead of three because you're a red-headed Irishman,' that would likely fall within the category of a violation.
I take it you're Irish?
[Laughs] Scots-Irish, so I can say that. Although you can tell I'm not red-headed. That's just an example that comes to mind.
Is the confidentiality aspect primarily an issue of 'innocent until proven guilty?'
If you look at one of the imposed objectives of this organization, it's to maintain both the integrity and the public confidence of the judiciary…Those objectives are consistent with the confidentiality that's imposed in the constitution, which is basically to protect an individual judge's integrity and their ability to adjudicate cases without having frivolous complaints about them out there in the public.
Does confidentiality become problematic when a case becomes public and turns into a circus like the [former Municipal Judge] Fran Gallegos proceedings?
I'm not necessarily going to agree with your characterization of it…but let's go back to the purpose and objectives. At the point in time where there is a notice of preliminary investigation-which is a rarely used mechanism-the commission can certify to the Supreme Court that it thinks the conduct that is being implicated rises to the level that it's going to compromise the integrity and the functionality of the judiciary. Since we don't have the authority to suspend a judge, we have to file that petition with the Supreme Court. The mere filing is what makes it public.
So the attention given to that particular case is reflective of its rarity?
I'm very hesitant to discuss specifics of an individual case but, in general terms, this process is not used often. The commission takes these matters very seriously because of its dual role to not only protect the integrity of the judiciary, but also to make sure the public is not subject to misconduct on the part of a judge. You have to balance that out.
