Judge Hinson released a statement Friday, after KPHO TV's story about this complaint. While I didn't get a courtesy copy from the judge, here is his statement. (Kudos to Prescottenews for publishing his statement in full. The advantage of an on-line "paper.")
My comments in brackets.
"A citizen has filed a complaint against me with the Commission on Judicial Conduct."
[Thankfully, citizens can do this in our country. If we don't, who will?]
"With assistance of counsel I have filed a response, and am awaiting further proceedings before the Commission."
[Does it seem odd to you that an "innocent" judge would need to hire a lawyer? And why does he have this right? The Commission is not a law enforcement agency. You don't have Miranda rights there.]
"The Commission is the only appropriate forum in which to address and settle the issues raised in the complaint."
[Not the whole truth. While the Commission is the first forum in which to settle these issues, it is not the ONLY forum. The House Judiciary Committee would be next. Attorney General Terry Goddard could get involved too. (Call his office.) But the Commission is not the only appropriate forum to address these issues. Judge Hinson is an elected public official. As such, his life and his job performance (or lack of it) are a matter of public scrutiny. THIS blog IS an appropriate forum. YOU can talk about it. It sounds like Judge Hinson is trying to restrict free speech.]
"The issues raised in the Complaint apply to a very small portion of my overall caseload and duties as a Superior Court Judge."
[So it's okay to break the law a few times if you obey it most of the time? Try that with a speeding ticket.]
"I have engaged in no criminal conduct in the performance of my judicial duties."
Read the complaint. Judge Hinson falsified affidavits to get his pay. That's a de facto violation of law, ARS 12-128.01. I argue it's felony theft. What would happen to you if you falsified your time card and took your salary?]
"All of the matters addressed in the complaint have been attended to and resolved, some of them more than two years prior to (the) filing of the complaint."
[But some as recently as Q3 2008! Only a month after the complaint was filed.
Is he saying that if you cheat your employer, cost litigants thousands of dollars in delays but eventually finish your job, you can say you're not guilty?]
"None of the issues raised in the complaint apply to cases presently assigned to my Division."
[So if you're accused of a crime, but aren't doing it now, it's okay?
And, since the days of Bill Clinton, I'm concerned about the odd phrase "presently assigned to my Division." You mean there could be more problems outside his Division?]
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury: Judge Hinson insists he's not guilty. The evidence proves otherwise.
__________________________________
While I am not condoning the following Supreme Court's Ethics Committee's "opinion" (first, it is only an opinion. Not binding. Second, setting ethical standards for the Judicial branch is something the Legislature should be doing in its oversight capacity), it seems to me that this advisory from the Committee condemns Judge Hinson. Pertinent excerpts below (bold emphasis mine):
Neither the Arizona Supreme Court nor any other state court dealing with ethical and administrative rules similar to ours has applied a specific time limit violation in a draconian manner in determining whether an ethical violation has occurred. [So, since no one else chooses the right, we won't either. Even though it's a Constitutional requirement?] In re Weeks, for example, involved the censure of a justice of the peace who repeatedly failed to dispose of matters under advisement within a reasonable time and who repeatedly filed false affidavits stating he had no cases under advisement for more than sixty days. [Bingo!] 134 Ariz. 521, 522, 658 P.2d 174, 175 (1983). In approving the Commission’s recommendation to publicly censure Weeks, the Arizona Supreme Court noted his “unreasonable delay in deciding matters under advisement,” especially in light of the requirements of A.R.S. § 11-424.02. Id. at 525, 658P.2d at 178 (emphasis added). The Court explained that delay for “‘no justifiable reason . . . reflects adversely on the entire judicial system.’” Id. (quoting E. Wayne Thode, Reporters Notes to the 1972 Code of Judicial Conduct 54-55 (1973) (“Thode”)) (emphasis added). In addition, our Supreme Court found that the filing of false affidavits brought the “integrity of the entire judicial system into question” and was “prejudicial to the administration of justice” even though it was stipulated that it “‘was not done intentionally knowingly, or recklessly . . . but due to an oversight’” on Weeks’ part. Id. [So ignorance of the law IS an excuse? But Judge Hinson was willful. The fact that he closed out his delinquent cases days before audits proves that.]
Similarly, In re Braun involved a justice of the peace who was “habitually tardy in the conduct of court business.” 180 Ariz. 240, 241, 883 P.2d 996, 997 (1994).
...The Commission had given earlier warnings to Braun about his “tardiness and administrative problems,” but to no avail. [Wow. If only judges gave YOU warnings instead of sentences.] Id. at 242, 883 P.2d at 998. In light of these facts, the Arizona Supreme Court suspended Braun without pay for thirty days. Id.
Under similar circumstances, the California Supreme Court censured a judge who “repeatedly and unjustifiably delayed filing decisions in cases submitted to his court.” In re Creede, Jr., 729 P.2d 79 (Cal. 1986). The judge had also filed false affidavits regarding his docket.Id. ... [Ewwww... a "censure." Do we really want to be as lax as California?]
The above-cited cases involved not merely alleged violations of promptness, but judges who filed false affidavits in order to receive their paychecks. See, e.g., In re Weeks, 134 Ariz. at 522, 658 P.2d at 175; In re Jensen, 593 P.2d at 200. In these cases, the court focused on the unwarranted delays and the falsity of the affidavits rather than the fact that the judge had missed a specific deadline. Id. Similarly, in finding that a judge had improperly delayed in disposing of matters, the court noted that such delays were unjustified in light of the surrounding circumstances or the judge’s repeated failures in this regard. See id.
______________________
Case Closed?
No comments:
Post a Comment