No. 6 February 7, 2013 205

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

Inquiry Concerning a Judge

Re: THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY BARNACK,

Accused.

(CJFD No. 12-24; SC S060976)

En Banc

On review of the Commission on Judicial Fitness and 

Disability Stipulation to Facts and Consent to Censure.

The Honorable Patricia Sullivan, Chair, Oregon 

Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, submitted 

the stipulation.

PER CURIAM

The accused is censured.
206 In re Barnack

PER CURIAM

This is a proceeding to inquire into the conduct of a 

circuit court judge. ORS 1.410 establishes the Commission 

on Judicial Fitness and Disability (Commission), and 

ORS 1.420 to ORS 1.430 set out procedures by which the 

Commission may investigate any complaint concerning the 

conduct of a judge. Those procedures permit the Commission 

and a judge who is the subject of a complaint to enter into 

a stipulation as to the facts and the appropriate sanction. 

ORS 1.420(1)(c); ORS 1.430(2). One permissible sanction is 

censure by this court. ORS 1.430(2); see also Or Const, Art VII 

(Amended), § 8(1)(e) (authorizing censure by the Supreme 

Court as sanction for violation of rule of judicial conduct). 

In this proceeding, the Commission and the accused, the 

Honorable Timothy Barnack, a judge of the Circuit Court 

of the State of Oregon for Jackson County, have agreed to a 

Stipulation of Facts and Consent to Censure (stipulation), 

in which the accused has stipulated that he engaged in 

conduct that violated the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct 

JR 1-101(A) (judge shall observe high standards of conduct 

so that integrity, impartiality, and independence of the 

judiciary are preserved) and JR 1-101(C) (judge shall not 

engage in conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s 

character, competence, temperament, or fitness to serve as 

a judge).

We set out the stipulation in pertinent part:

“The accused stipulates as follows:

“1. If a contested hearing was held in this matter, 

clear, cogent and convincing evidence would be presented 

sufficient to establish the facts that follow;

“2. At all material times herein, the accused was 

a judge on the Circuit Court in Jackson County, State of 

Oregon.

“3. In October 2011, defendant Richard Lee Taylor was 

convicted of 21 sex crimes including five counts of using a 

child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, one count 

of sexual abuse in the first degree, one count of sodomy in 

the second degree, three counts of encouraging child sexual 

abuse in the first degree, and three counts of encouraging 

child sexual abuse in the second degree.
Cite as 353 Or 205 (2013) 207

“4. Taylor’s victims were two 12 year old boys. The 

evidence included about 30 video recordings showing 

Taylor sexually abusing the boys. The recordings were so 

disturbing that jurors thanked Judge Barnack for stopping 

some of the video shown during the three day trial. Several 

jurors cried. Three jurors asked Judge Barnack whether 

there was counseling available to them.

“5. On January 21, 2012, Judge Barnack sentenced 

Taylor to 21 life sentences in prison without the possibility 

of parole. Taylor declined to comment during his sentencing 

when asked by the judge if he wished to do so.

“6. Judge Barnack referred to Taylor as a ‘piece of 

shit,’ repeatedly asked Taylor if he wanted to salvage his 

soul, commented that community members might ask why 

Taylor isn’t ‘hanging from a tree’ and that he personally 

hopes that Taylor rots in prison.

“7. Judge Barnack, like the jurors, says he was 

traumatized from viewing the videos of the abuse.

“8. Judge Barnack acknowledges he lost control of his 

emotions when Taylor declined to speak at his sentencing. 

Judge Barnack felt Taylor evidenced an indifferent and 

unsympathetic attitude towards his victims, one of whom 

was in the courtroom. Judge Barnack acknowledges that 

his comments were inappropriate.

“9. After sentencing, Judge Barnack sent an email to 

the other Jackson County Circuit Court Judges apologizing 

for his remarks at the sentencing of Taylor. Judge Barnack 

sought counseling from more experienced judges regarding 

how best to manage emotionally charged courtroom 

situations. Furthermore, Judge Barnack has adopted 

procedures such as a prepared script for sentencing to 

ensure that such behavior is not repeated.”

Pursuant to ORS 1.430(2), the court has reviewed 

the stipulation of facts and the disciplinary action to which 

the accused has consented. The court approves the consent 

to censure.

The accused is censured.