Opinion ID: 1855123
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: False statements to investigators )

Text: Investigator Bill Dickinson, of the attorney general's office, testified about statements made to him by Judge Boggan in the presence of Donnie McLeod, who was then Judge Boggan's attorney. Dickinson testified that he had conducted an investigation in late April or early May 1997 concerning Judge Boggan, based on a referral from the district attorney. Dickinson questioned Judge Boggan about the $23,000 purportedly paid in August 1996 in settlement of the audit. Judge Boggan told Dickinson and Hart that when he learned money was missing from the Probate Office account he went to the bank in the morning and withdrew $23,000 from his personal account and put it in the Probate Office account. He told Dickinson that he gave the deposit slip from this transaction to the examiner. He said that he then talked to his attorney, who, he said, told him he should not pay the charge-back because to do so would make it look as if he had something to hide. Judge Boggan said that he then went back to the bank that afternoon and put the money back in his personal account. During the interview and after Judge Boggan had made these representations, he was shown the sequential documents from the bank (the counter checks and the deposit slips from August 24, 1996). He denied that the transactions were sequential and said again that he had put the money in the Probate Office account in the morning and then, on his attorney's advice, had removed the money that afternoon and put it in his personal account. He further stated that he was going to borrow money from attorney McLeod to cover the check. We are persuaded by our review of the record of the proceedings on the law and the facts, and by the briefs filed by the parties, that the court had before it clear and convincing evidence indicating that Judge Boggan had committed the offenses charged in Counts One and Two. We will not in this case revisit Hayes v. Alabama Court of the Judiciary , Powers v. Judicial Inquiry Commission , or In re Samford, because we conclude that the sanction of removal from office for these serious offenses was not plainly and palpably wrong, manifestly unjust, or without supporting evidence. AFFIRMED. MADDOX, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. HOOPER, C.J., concurs specially. COOK and JOHNSTONE, JJ., dissent.