Howard Co. judge files exceptions in disciplinary case

Listen to this article

A Howard County District Court judge recommended for discipline by a state panel last month is challenging the findings in the Court of Appeals and accusing investigators and the panel of mistreating her throughout the process.

Judge Mary C. Reese filed Thursday exceptions to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities‘ findings, conclusions and recommendations. A majority of the commission, six members, determined she committed sanctionable conduct in a 2015 relationship violence case and recommended she attend specialized training and be assigned a mentor judge.

Four members dissented, finding Reese’s conduct was “well within the boundaries of her independent juridical discretion.”

The Court of Appeals has not yet scheduled a date to consider the matter.

In last week’s filing with the state’s highest court, Reese accused the panel of recommending a sanction “not for misconduct or a disability, but for her decision in one case,” and such a decision cannot constitute sanctionable conduct even if it is incorrect. She is seeking a dismissal of the proceedings with prejudice.

Reese alleges investigative counsel punished her for contesting their decision to file charges by denying discovery, the chance to present evidence and any meaningful chance to refute information they were presenting.

In the underlying case, a woman was seeking a peace order on behalf of her 17-year-old granddaughter against the minor victim’s ex-boyfriend, whom she alleged had assaulted her and given her a black eye. Reese heard the grandmother’s description of the incident and when asked, the alleged victim said she had not been in contact with her ex-boyfriend since and had blocked him on her phone.

Reese dismissed the case and said, “It looks to me like she’s taking care of it.” At her disciplinary hearing, Reese explained that she was concerned about the victim but felt she could not ask more questions in an ex parte hearing without appearing to advocate on her behalf.

The Women’s Law Center of Maryland filed complaints about Reese stemming from the case and one additional matter in July 2015. Reese was notified of the complaints in February 2016, which she claims violated the timetables in the Maryland Rules.

After investigators filed charges in April 2017, Reese requested access to materials being used by investigators and sent interrogatories but “her attempts were blocked at every turn,” according to last week’s filing. She alleges investigators refused to respond to requests and a motion to strike them was granted by the commission, which also entered a protective order denying disclosure of confidential information.

At the November hearing, the commission denied the majority of Reese’s motion to dismiss, which cited procedural unfairness, and the case went forward with only recordings of the hearings in question as evidence.

A spokesperson for the Maryland Judiciary said it does not comment on pending actions before the Court of Appeals.

Independent judiciary

Though the charges were purportedly based on Reese’s demeanor and choice of words in the proceedings, she alleges in the exceptions that the sanction was based on her decision, which is “outside the Commission’s purview to review or punish.”

Judges cannot be sanctioned for “making an erroneous finding of fact, reaching an incorrect legal conclusion, or misapplying the law,” according to the Maryland Rules.

“As it stands, the Commission’s ruling should make every judge in Maryland concerned that his or her decision-making will be questioned and potentially prosecuted by Investigative Counsel as a violation of the Code of Judicial conduct if unpopular with a certain citizen or group of citizens,” the filing argues. “Judges should not have to worry whether their decisions are politically unpopular.”

Reese asked reasonable questions to determine basic facts in the hearing and based on the answers she rendered her decision, according to her filing. Even if she could have asked more questions, she argues failing to do so would not constitute sanctionable conduct because it would be an exercise of her discretion.

“The fact that a party is pro se does not mean that a judge must assume the role of that party’s lawyer or afford the party special treatment,” Reese alleges.

Reese’s attorney, Andrew Jay Graham, of Kramon & Graham PA in Baltimore, declined to comment on the filing Tuesday. Reese is also represented by Louis P. Malick, Graham’s colleague.