Opinion ID: 1837074
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Charges 1, 2, 3, and 5

Text: During Judge Kinsey's judicial campaign, she distributed numerous pamphlets which depicted a very pro-law enforcement stance. In charge 1, Kinsey disseminated a brochure which showed a full-page picture of her standing with ten heavily armed police officers and was captioned Who do these guys count on to back them up? Within the flyer, she stated, [Y]our police officers expect judges to take their testimony seriously and to help law enforcement by putting criminals where they belong ... behind bars!  Charge 2 is based upon another flyer entitled  If you are a criminal, you probably won't want to read this!  In this leaflet, she again stressed, [Y]our police officers expect judges to take their testimony seriously and to help law enforcement by putting criminals where they belong... behind bars!  The brochure also declared, Above all else, Pat Kinsey identifies with the victims of crime. A brochure entitled  Let's Elect Pat Kinsey  is the basis behind charge 3. In this leaflet, she informed the voting public that she believes, We must support our hard-working law enforcement officers by putting criminals behind bars, not back on our streets. Charge 5, which is drawn from the six brochures and a radio interview, asserts that Judge Kinsey deliberately attempted to cloak her campaign in an umbrella of law enforcement. In a flyer entitled  The Alternative for County Judge,  she stated, Pat Kinsey will support our valiant law enforcement officers ... not make their job harder. She also declared in this literature that, Pat Kinsey will bend over backward to ensure that honest, law-abiding citizens are not victimized a second time by the legal system that is supposed to protect them. This charge also refers to statements in a brochure entitled  A Vital Message From Law Enforcement,  which declared, victims have a right to expect judges to protect them by denying bond to potentially dangerous offenders. During oral argument, Judge Kinsey acknowledged that Canon 7 was violated by her statements that a judge should help law enforcement by putting criminals where they belongbehind bars and that she would bend over backward to protect victims. She contends, however, that this should be considered protected speech under the First Amendment. Although some of these charges taken in isolation would not violate the judicial canons, taken together it becomes clear that Judge Kinsey was running on a platform which stressed her allegiance to police officers. [8] Each of the charges addressed above involved implicit pledges that if elected to office, Judge Kinsey would help law enforcement. Through these statements, Judge Kinsey fostered the distinct impression that she harbored a prosecutor's bias and police officers could expect more favorable treatment from her as she promised to support police officers and help them put criminals behind bars. She also made pledges to victims of crime, promising to bend over backward for them and stressing the point that she identified with them above all else, thus giving the appearance that she was already committed to according them more favorable treatment than other parties appearing before her. By disseminating materials which promised a different treatment based on the identity of the person appearing before her, it is beyond question that these promises affect her appearance of impartiality and fitness as a judge. While our judicial code does not prohibit a candidate from discussing his or her philosophical beliefs, in the campaign literature at issue Judge Kinsey pledged her support and promised favorable treatment for certain parties and witnesses who would be appearing before her (i.e., police and victims of crime). Criminal defendants and criminal defense lawyers could have a genuine concern that they will not be facing a fair and impartial tribunal. We do not find that these types of pledges and statements by a judicial candidate are protected by the First Amendment.