After high court decision, rules committee ready to act on judicial discipline changes

Listen to this article

Maryland’s rules committee is poised to recommend amendments the judicial discipline rules after the Court of Appeals explained Tuesday why it dismissed a case against a Howard County judge.

The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has been working through the summer to invite written comment on revised rules, according to retired Court of Appeals Judge Alan M. Wilner, chair of the committee. But it was waiting for high court’s opinion in Howard County District Judge Mary C. Reese’s case before proceeding.

Now, Wilner said he expects the subcommittee handling the judicial discipline rules, which meets in August, to make recommendations to the full committee for its September meeting and any changes adopted should be sent to the Court of Appeals by early October.

“We’ve got a jump-start on it because we did get most of the written comments but we haven’t done anything with them because we were waiting for the opinion in Judge Reese’s case,” Wilner said.

The Court of Appeals held that Reese did not commit sanctionable conduct in a 2015 relationship violence hearing, and her performance “belies any rational finding of a lack of competence or diligence on her part,” Judge Michele D. Hotten wrote on behalf the unanimous court.

Andrew Jay Graham, a lawyer for Reese, called the opinion “thoughtful and thorough.”

“We’re pleased also that there really seemed to be no doubt in anyone’s mind… that Judge Reese was innocent of any wrongdoing and violation of any rules,” said Graham, of Kramon & Graham P.A. in Baltimore.

The Commission on Judicial Disabilities determined Reese committed sanctionable conduct when she denied a peace order for a juvenile victim of relationship violence after only a brief courtroom exchange. Reese challenged the panel’s findings, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the case within weeks of oral argument in March.

“Although reasonable minds could differ regarding the merits of Judge Reese’s decisions in the cases before her, those decisions were rooted in consideration of the law and the factual circumstances,” Hotton wrote Tuesday in explaining the court’s order. “In this proceeding, we examine whether Judge Reese’s actions constituted sanctionable conduct under our rules and the circumstances presented. Our review of the record persuades us that they did not.”

Rule updates

In a concurring opinion, Judge Shirley Watts explicitly addressed issues she hopes the rules committee will address, including sanction options and pre-sanction intervention.

“I would encourage the Rules Committee to review (the rules) to give the Commission greater latitude to resolve cases where charges are pending, or sanctionable conduct is found, without forwarding the matter to this Court,” she wrote.

Watts noted the recommended sanction of training and a mentor judge are not an option in the rules and questioned if the court would have had the authority to impose it had it found a violation in Reese’s case.

The proposed revisions to the rules would allow the commission to dismiss a complaint with a confidential “letter of cautionary advice” if members believe the letter will sufficiently address any sanctionable conduct. The Judicial Inquiry Board would also be permitted to offer the judge a private meeting with a peer review panel to evaluate the case and offer advice on how to proceed.

Watts also criticized the commission’s decision not to admit expert testimony in Reese’s case and how the decision was made. The commission’s acting chair considered the issue at a pre-hearing conference which was not on the record and then issued a one-sentence order stating no expert witnesses would be permitted.

“In my opinion, the Rules Committee should review the manner in which the Commission handles motions in limine with respect to expert witness testimony, and a Maryland Rule should be developed to govern the procedure for reviewing such motions,” she concluded.

The case is In the Matter of the Honorable Mary C. Reese, CJD-2.

Reese was the second judge to appeal a commission sanction and challenge the disciplinary process in the last year.

The Court of Appeals in March upheld Baltimore City Circuit Judge Pamela J. White’s public reprimand in March but faulted the commission for failing to provide certain documents to White and rejecting her discovery requests. The court determined White received a fair proceeding, if not a perfect one. White had raised due process concerns on appeal.