Federal judge had sex in chambers with high-ranking police officer, panel says

A federal judge has been disciplined for having sex their chambers with a high-ranking law enforcement officer within earshot of staff, attending a partisan political event and for lying to superior judges who investigated the claims, a disciplinary committee revealed.

But the identity of the judge and the district court in which they sit is being kept private by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Council of the United States in its decision issued Friday, which was first reported by Reuters.

The committee, comprised of seven judges, upheld the findings of judicial misconduct issued in February by the Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit, the federal appeals circuit that handles cases arising from U.S. District Courts in Alabama, Georgia and Florida.

The 11th Circuit imposed sanctions on the judge, who agreed to them, which included ordering that they write letters of apology to six former law clerks who were interviewed in the probe; foregoing service as the chief judge in the federal district where they sit; and refraining from sitting on any Judicial Conference committee.

A spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declined to comment on the decision, which affirmed those sanctions, and on the withholding of the judge’s name.

According to the decision, William Pryor, the chief circuit judge of the 11th Circuit, in September, was made aware of a complaint against the unnamed judge based on a memorandum received by the chief judge in the district.

“The information in the Chief District Judge’s memorandum came from one of the subject judge’s law clerks,” the decision said.

“The law clerk reported that, on multiple occasions, the subject judge engaged in sexual activity with a uniformed law enforcement officer in chambers during work hours within earshot of the judge’s staff,” the decision said.

“The law clerk also reported that the subject judge failed to mentor the law clerks and edit their work, displayed visible anger to the law clerks, including yelling and cursing, and, on one occasion, told staff that the judge had ‘too many martinis the night before’ at an event for a District Attorney.”

After the judge who was the subject of the complaint was notified by the chief circuit judge, they submitted a response that denied the allegations, calling them “outrageous” and “baseless,” the decision said.

A special committee was then appointed to investigate the allegations, which included interviewing six of the judge’s former clerks and reviewing documents, security footage and visitor logins.

It also included “conducting testing in a chamber with a similar layout to determine whether law clerks seated outside chambers could hear sounds from within; arranging forensic testing of a couch cushion in the subject judge’s chambers,” the decision said.

The special committee in December issued a report finding that the judge “engaged in judicial misconduct by … engaging in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking law enforcement officer and having sexual intercourse in the judge’s chambers during business hours,” the decision said.

The committee also found that the judge engaged in misconduct by attending a campaign event for a district attorney, and by making false statements to Chief Circuit Judge Pryor and to the chief court district judge “that were material to the investigation.”

“Specifically, the subject judge denied engaging in sexual intercourse in the courthouse and denied knowing who the allegation concerned,” the decision said,

The committee found that the affair lasted for about two years and was conducted with a high-ranking officer in a police department.

“On multiple occasions, during business hours, the subject judge and the police officer engaged in
sexual intercourse in the subject judge’s chambers within earshot of the subject judge’s staff,” the decision said.

“Moreover, during the period in which the affair was ongoing, the police department was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases being litigated in the district,” according to the decision.

The judge did not disclose the affair to any other judge, staff or litigating party.

“The subject judge could have been assigned to handle a case in which the officer or the police department had an interest, which, in turn, would have created a conflict or the appearance of a conflict,” the decision said.

“Although the special committee did not find any instance of the subject judge presiding over a case in which either the officer or the police department was a party or a witness, the special committee found that this was due to ‘happenstance’ rather than the subject judge’s efforts to mitigate any potential conflict.”

The affair made the judge “vulnerable to potential extortion or blackmail,” violated the judicial code of conduct, “demonstrated a gross lack of judgment,” and created an “uncomfortable and troubling” environment for their staff, the decision said.

The decision also said the special committee that recommended sanctions against the judge “ultimately decided not to recommend a more severe sanction because: (1) the subject judge corrected the false statements and subsequently was candid with the special committee; (2) it was not likely that the subject judge would engage in similar misconduct in the future, as the subject judge ended the relationship with the law enforcement officer and has committed to avoid partisan political events in the future; and (3) the subject judge had otherwise rendered exemplary service to the court.”

“The special committee explained that while it was ‘deeply troubled’ by the subject judge’s conduct, the subject judge ‘demonstrated a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service to the judiciary,’ ” the decision noted.