The aim of judicial discipline is "the maintenance of the honor and dignity of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice rather than the punishment of the individual." This principle directs the outcome in the respondent's case. The respondent's failure to control her temper and frustrations and her conduct toward potential members of the jury in open court greatly detracted from the honor and dignity of the judiciary. Her actions negatively impacted the proper administration of justice in a felony criminal case over which she presided. While we recognize that the Commission's recommendation is not binding on this court, our review of the entire record supports the Commission's recommendation that the appropriate discipline in the respondent's case is public censure.Judge Pilshaw's was previously repremanded as reported here.
Here and here is coverage of the censure in the Wichita Eagle. I will be blogging about judicial candidates in Sedgwick County and, of course, Judge Pilshaw is one of those up for election.
Sort of odd that the KSC indicated it had complete confidence that any misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in a first-degree murder case, but also finds that the same conduct merits public censure.
Update: here is an entry on What the Judge Ate for Breakfast noting that the censure order hit the national blog scene. One cited blog called Deliberatons, about juries, sort of agrees that the Gaither opinion doesn't inspire a lot of confidence:
But surely Gaither and his lawyers didn't get the voir dire they should have, much less the deeply committed jury described in that other juror's letter to the judge. An apology is a good thing, but more than a year after the Gaither opinion, a taint remains.'Nuff said?
No comments:
Post a Comment