Opinion ID: 1920622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Appropriate Penalty

Text: In re: Chaisson [34] described the following non-exclusive factors to be used in determining the appropriate sanction in a judicial discipline matter: (a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge's official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred; (f) whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his conduct; (g) the length of service on the bench; (h) whether there have been prior complaints about this judge; (i) the effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary; and (j) the extent to which the judge exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires. As to (a) and (b), Judge Elloie's misconduct evidences a pattern of misconduct in the Brown and Reeves cases. Further, Judge Elloie himself testified that he has never followed the law of La. R.S. 44:9. As to (c) and (d), Judge Elloie's misconduct occurred in the courtroom or with respect to his official judicial duties. As to (e), Judge Elloie acknowledged that the facts which support the Formal Charge, as alleged, occurred. However, he steadfastly maintained that his actions did not constitute judicial misconduct. In the Reeves matter, he claimed that a simple legal error occurred. In the Brown matter, he claimed he followed the long-standing custom of the court. Judge Elloie did not acknowledge or comprehend that his actions violated the ethical requirements of judges as required by the judicial canons and the constitution. As to (f), Judge Johnson testified that the rules of criminal district court were changed to conform to the requirements of La. R.S. 44:9. However, there was no testimony regarding whether Judge Elloie intends to change or modify his conduct. As to (g), Judge Elloie was elected to the bench on November 5, 1996. He took his first judicial oath of office on January 1, 1997, and has served continuously since that time. Judge Elloie was not a new judge or unfamiliar with his judicial role at the time of the two instances supporting the Formal Charge. Moreover, Judge Elloie has great familiarity with criminal law, as this was his area of practice prior to election to the bench. As to (h), Judge Elloie was previously the subject of Formal Charges Nos. 0111-0115 and 0124. [35] He was still serving a three-year probationary period at the time of the actions leading to the present charge. [36] As to (i), Judge Elloie's actions undermined the judicial process in Louisiana. In two cases which were not assigned to his section of court and where he had no authority or jurisdiction to act, he failed to comply with the law and ordered expungements and dismissals of prosecutions in two serious felony cases without notice, without convening mandatory contradictory hearings, and without making the legal and factual inquiry as to whether expungement and dismissal were authorized by law. As to (j), there is no evidence that Judge Elloie exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires in this case. This court held previously held that the primary purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct is to protect the public rather than to discipline a judge. In re: Ellender, 2004-2123 p. 9 (La.12/13/04), 889 So.2d 225, 231; In re: Marullo, 96-2222 p. 4 (La.4/8/97), 692 So.2d 1019, 1023. The Commission was not able to reach a consensus whether Judge Elloie was in bad faith as to the proven conduct. Some members found bad faith because they believed Judge Elloie's primary motive was to assist political friends; however, other members accepted his assertions that he followed practices established many years before he took office. In order to protect the public, the Commission recommended that Judge Elloie be publicly censured. In addition, the Commission recommended that it be allowed to recover the costs associated with the investigation in this matter. Pursuant to La. Sup.Ct. Rule XXIII, § 22, [37] the Commission has the right to recover costs, subject to this court's review. See In re: Daniels, 340 So.2d 301, 309 (La.1976) and Decuir, 95-0056 p. 10, 654 So.2d at 693. A copy of the invoice of the court reporting service for the transcription of the January 21, 2005 hearing in the amount of $689.50 is attached to the Certificate of Costs in the record of these proceedings.