The Supreme Court upheld a disciplinary panel's decision not to discipline a judge who ordered a defense lawyer to apologize for impugning the integrity of a peace officer, and directing the lawyer to write a letter of apology to the peace officer.
THE BACKGROUND: During an omnibus hearing in Stillwater, Judge Gregory G. Galler ordered a defense lawyer to apologize and write a letter of apology to a peace officer for impugning the integrity of the officer.
Instead, the defense lawyer filed a complaint with the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, alleging that Judge Galler had "created the appearance of impropriety" by ordering the apology.
A panel appointed by the Board held a hearing and dismissed the charges against Judge Galler, who was later re-elected and still sits on the bench in 2017. The panel found that the Board failed to prove the allegations in its complaint by clear and convincing evidence, including the primary allegation that Judge Galler had ordered the defense attorney to apologize for impugning the integrity of the police officer.
The Board appealed the decision of its own panel to the Supreme Court and asked for the discipline of Judge Faller.
On November 9, 2011, the Supreme Court rejected the Board's appeal. See here.
First, the Supreme Court held that "a hearing panel must dismiss a judicial discipline complaint when the Board on Judicial Standards fails to present clear and convincing evidence of judicial
misconduct.
Second, the Supreme Court held that "the factual findings of a hearing panel are sufficient for review by the court when the panel finds that the Board has failed to prove the specific factual allegations in the Board’s judicial discipline complaint by clear and convincing evidence."
Third, the Supreme Court explained that "the Curt reviews a hearing panel’s dismissal of a judicial discipline complaint de novo but gives deference to the panel’s factual findings."
THE BACKGROUND: During an omnibus hearing in Stillwater, Judge Gregory G. Galler ordered a defense lawyer to apologize and write a letter of apology to a peace officer for impugning the integrity of the officer.
Instead, the defense lawyer filed a complaint with the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, alleging that Judge Galler had "created the appearance of impropriety" by ordering the apology.
A panel appointed by the Board held a hearing and dismissed the charges against Judge Galler, who was later re-elected and still sits on the bench in 2017. The panel found that the Board failed to prove the allegations in its complaint by clear and convincing evidence, including the primary allegation that Judge Galler had ordered the defense attorney to apologize for impugning the integrity of the police officer.
The Board appealed the decision of its own panel to the Supreme Court and asked for the discipline of Judge Faller.
On November 9, 2011, the Supreme Court rejected the Board's appeal. See here.
First, the Supreme Court held that "a hearing panel must dismiss a judicial discipline complaint when the Board on Judicial Standards fails to present clear and convincing evidence of judicial
misconduct.
Second, the Supreme Court held that "the factual findings of a hearing panel are sufficient for review by the court when the panel finds that the Board has failed to prove the specific factual allegations in the Board’s judicial discipline complaint by clear and convincing evidence."
Third, the Supreme Court explained that "the Curt reviews a hearing panel’s dismissal of a judicial discipline complaint de novo but gives deference to the panel’s factual findings."
No comments:
Post a Comment