Opinion ID: 2419685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count II Mary Gregory Letter

Text: Appellant's cousin and supporter, Mary Gregory, prepared a letter in support of appellant which was mailed to 800 nurses in Kenton County. The letter detailed the specifics of a child abuse case which had been before appellant's opponent, the current circuit judge. The letter reads in full as follows: October 24, 1994 [picture inset, of a battered child] Dear Medical Professional, This child was born on August 25, 1989 into a world where she thought she would be loved and protected. Instead on November 26, 1992 she was brought to St. Luke West seriously battered. This small innocent child had multiple abrasions and contusions including bilateral raccoon eyes and a perforated eardrum. Her abuser is the mother's 41 year old boyfriend. He was found guilty and sentenced to only five years by Judge Trusty though the prosecutor argued for ten years. Judge Trusty then probated this criminal's sentence, and he actually only served 153 days. In 153 days her physical injuries were healed but the emotional scar will last a lifetime. As medical professionals who witness abuse daily, it is time to judge our judges. How many times have you filled out abuse forms? How many times have you seen repeat abuse by repeated abusers? It is time to stop the abuse instead of treating it. Please join me in stopping the abuse and vote for a person who will let no one walk away before justice is served. She has concern for the victim. Vote for Patricia M. Summe, November 8, 1994 for Circuit Court Judge. Sincerely, Mary S. Gregory, R.N., E.R. St. Elizabeth North [Caption stating that postage and stationary were paid for by appellant's campaign committee] Appellant argues that the Commission's decision incorrectly holds that criticism alone of an incumbent judge amounts to a preelection announcement and commitment to the voters regarding appellant's position on the issue of probation in child abuse cases. She further contends that the Commission's decision attempts to reverse this Court's holding in J.C.J.D. v. R.J.C.R., Ky., 803 S.W.2d 953 (1991). We disagree. Our holding in J.C.J.D., supra , does not even apply to the case sub judice as it is based on the former version of Canon 7B(1)(c) which has now been replaced by the version presently at issue. In addition, the letter at issue in the present case clearly goes beyond criticism of appellant's opponent, which was the primary issue in J.C.J.D ., as it contains a graphic picture of an abused child and states that her opponent sentenced the child's abuser to five years even though the prosecutor had requested ten. The letter goes on to state that her opponent probated that particular sentence after the abuser served only 153 days and that it is time to judge our judges and to stop repeated abuse instead of treating it. The letter concludes by encouraging voters to join me in stopping the abuse and vote for a person who will let no one walk away before justice is served, which is followed by a paid-for acknowledgment. The obvious crux of the letter is that appellant's opponent lets child abusers off easy and that if appellant was elected, she would not. As was aptly stated in a treatise on the various rules of judicial conduct throughout the United States: Ethics advisory opinions have addressed the propriety of numerous statements and pledges candidates have proposed to use in the course of a campaign. The general sense of these opinions is that anything that could be interpreted as a pledge that the candidate will take a particular approach in deciding cases or a particular class of cases is prohibited. Jeffrey M. Shaman et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics, Section 11.09, p. 372 (Michie 2nd ed., 1995). While in isolation, a judge who will let no one walk away before justice is served is something to which all should aspire, in the context of the present judicial campaign, it represented appellant's commitment to prevent the probation of child abusers. The evidence fully supports this conclusion and, therefore, we affirm the decision of the Commission as to Count II.