Miss. Comm'n Judicial Performance v. Brown
| Docket Number: | 2004-JP-01831-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-30-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Billy Ray Brown is Removed from Office as Rankin County Justice Court Judge, District 3, effective from and after the date of this opinion and shall pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $1,336.79. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Judicial discipline - Misuse of power of office - Removal from office Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Smith, C.J., and Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-14-2004 Appealed from: COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE Judge: Patricia D. Wise Disposition: Recommended that Appellee be removed from office and assessed costs. Case Number: 2003-056 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance |
LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III |
||
| Appellee: | Billy Ray Brown | CHRISTOPHER A. TABB |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Judicial discipline - Misuse of power of office - Removal from office |
| Summary of the Facts: | Billy Ray Brown has served as a Rankin County Justice Court Judge for over twenty-five years. A criminal affidavit was filed with the Justice Court of Rankin County, alleging that Judge Brown’s son, Michael, pushed his wife, Alison, down to the floor and kicked her with his boots. Judge Brown interfered with the prosecution of the case against Michael by ordering him released from jail and arranging to have his case remanded to the file. This prompted Alison to file a complaint with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. Upon learning of the complaint, Judge Brown threatened Alison by telling her that if he lost his job, she would lose hers. The Commission recommends that Judge Brown be removed from office and assessed costs of $1,336.79. Judge Brown appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Judge Brown challenges only the recommendation of punishment. Judge Brown’s conduct violated Canon 1. His misuse of the power of his office evidenced his disregard for the administration of justice. By attempting to use his position to obtain favorable treatment for, and obstruct the prosecution of the charges against, his son, Judge Brown discredited the dignity and integrity of his office and the judiciary. By using his office to improperly influence other officers of the judicial system, Judge Brown both created the appearance of impropriety and committed an actual impropriety. Judge Brown’s actions almost certainly would tend to erode public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary and his conduct violated Canon 2A. Judge Brown allowed his relationship with his son to influence his conduct and judgment, and he lent the prestige of his office to advance his and his son’s private interests. Judge Brown violated Canon 2B. Since the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Brown do not allege that he presided over a matter from which he should have disqualified himself, he did not violate Canon 3B(1). In attempting to obstruct the justice system by interfering with the charges against his son, Judge Brown was unfaithful to the law, and he failed to maintain professional competence. Judge Brown’s conduct violated Canon 3B(2). The Commission has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Brown’s conduct violated Canon 3B(3). While Judge Brown’s communications with the jailer, the arresting office, the prosecutor, and the clerk were inappropriate and contrary to the fair administration of justice, they are not ex parte communications prohibited under Canon 3B(7). While Judge Brown’s actions did interfere with the fair, prompt, and efficient conclusion of the matters involving his son, they did not violate Canon 3B(8), which addresses judicial matters presided over by the judge accused of violating the canon. By telling the court clerk to abandon normal procedure and hold the file on her desk rather than place it on Judge Redfern’s desk, Judge Brown misused his administrative powers to interfere with the clerk’s official duties. By his repeated attempts to intimidate an officer of the law, the prosecutor, and the court clerk, Judge Brown not only violated his own code of conduct, but encouraged – if not demanded – that others violate their own respective codes of conduct. Judge Brown’s conduct violated Canon 3C(1) and 3C(2). Judge Brown’s conduct constituted both willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Judge Brown admits that his actions were inappropriate. However, he argues that his conduct had no impact on the outcome of the criminal charges against his son, and a very limited number of persons were involved and none were really impacted. Judge Brown’s offenses were of significant magnitude. By attempting to intimidate officers of the law and the court into interfering with the administration of justice, Judge Brown has offended the essence of the principles on which our judiciary and its code of conduct are based and depend. Since this proceeding involves multiple offenses and Judge Brown has previously been disciplined for improperly interfering with a case before the Justice Court, Judge Brown has evinced a pattern of improper and unethical behavior. Judge Brown’s conduct involved moral turpitude. He used the power of his office to pressure others into interfering with the administration favoring his son, interfering with the judicial process, and violating their own professional ethics. Judge Brown has been reprimanded for similar conduct in the past and should have known his actions were improper. Judge Brown’s actions were improper, exhibited disrespect for all parties involved and the judicial system itself, and threatened the integrity and independence of his judicial office. Therefore, he is removed from the office of Justice Court Judge and assessed with the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $1,336.79. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
