Opinion ID: 4527879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct

Text: In their briefs submitted to the Court, the JDC and the respondent agree with many of the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law—including that the respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.16(a), and 3.1(C) and (D) of the Code of Judicial Conduct in the manner set forth above. Having reviewed the record, we agree that those violations were proven by clear and convincing evidence. However, the JDC contends that the Board erroneously rejected some other allegations in the Statement of Charges. The JDC asserts that the Board should have found that the respondent lied to Corporal Harvey when the corporal asked “what happened to your friend” who was fishing with you, and the respondent denied knowing what the officer was talking about. The JDC asserts that the Board also should have found that the respondent lied about these things during his sworn statement. The JDC argues that the DNR officers’ testimony was credible and consistent, but both the respondent and his father lied during the evidentiary hearing, so it was error to make a credibility finding in the respondent’s favor on this issue. As such, the JDC asks the Court to make findings of fact 14 that Mr. Napier was fishing with the respondent, that the respondent knew Mr. Napier’s name at the time, that the respondent intentionally refused to identify Mr. Napier when questioned by Corporal Harvey, and that the respondent lied about this matter during his sworn statement. After reviewing the record, we agree with the Board that the JDC failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the respondent lied about Mr. Napier. It could have easily appeared to the officers, who were observing from a distance, that the three men were fishing together on the crowded bank of the spillway. Thus, we do not find fault with the DNR officers’ testimony. However, the respondent testified that while Mr. Napier happened to be a friend of his father, the respondent did not know him or his name at the time, and they had not been fishing together. Importantly, Mr. Napier corroborated the respondent’s testimony. Moreover, the fact that the DNR officers never learned Mr. Napier’s name or obtained his driver’s and fishing licenses supports Mr. Napier’s recitation of the events; Mr. Napier testified that he walked to the parking lot several minutes after the respondent and the father and never spoke to or interacted with the DNR officers. Even though we make an independent review of the record in judicial disciplinary cases, on this issue we will defer to the Board’s credibility determinations and resolution of conflicting evidence. 13 See e.g., Sims v. Miller, 227 W.Va. 395, 402, 709 S.E.2d 750, 757 (2011) (“the It is possible that the respondent’s father, who had known Mr. Napier for several 13 years, made a misrepresentation to Corporal Harvey about Mr. Napier. However, the respondent is not responsible for his father’s conduct. 15 hearing examiner who observed the witness testimony is in the best position to make credibility judgments.”); Dale v. Veltri, 230 W.Va. 598, 604, 741 S.E.2d 823, 829 (2013) (noting that “[t]he hearing examiner was in a position to observe the demeanor of the witness, noted the obvious difference between the allegations . . . , and resolved the conflict” in the evidence). Next, the JDC contends that the Board erroneously rejected one of the claims in the Statement of Charges that accused the respondent of violating Rule 1.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 1.1 mandates that a judicial officer shall “comply with the law, including the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct.” 14 (emphasis added.) The Board found that the respondent violated Rule 1.1 by breaking the fishing law, but the Statement of Charges asserted that he also violated Rule 1.1 by lying during his sworn statement to the JDC. As set forth above, the Board concluded that the respondent violated Rule 2.16(A) by falsely denying in his sworn statement that he had behaved in a disrespectful and coercive manner toward the DNR officers. The JDC argues that because the Board found that the respondent violated Rule 2.16(A), logic dictates that he also violated the provision of Rule 1.1 that prohibits a judicial officer from violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. We agree with the JDC on this issue. 14 See supra n. 6. 16 The Board rejected the JDC’s arguments about this Rule 1.1 infraction by finding that there was insufficient evidence that any misstatement during the sworn statement constituted a violation of any law. However, the Board’s reading of Rule 1.1 is too narrow. Not only does the Rule require judicial officers to comply with statutory and regulatory law, it also requires them to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that by providing false information to the JDC during his sworn statement, the respondent also violated Rule 1.1.