Opinion ID: 1385402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: courtesy to jurors

Text: With regard to paragraph two, we find that there was conflicting evidence as to whether Magistrate Browning was rude to a group of jurors who, as the result of some form of misunderstanding, arrived early on July 14, 1992, for jury duty. Some of the jurors who testified before the Hearing Board claimed that Magistrate Browning was disrespectful and treated them inappropriately. On the other hand, two other jurors said that she acted appropriately, one of which recalled Magistrate Browning apologizing to the group for the misunderstanding. Although it is the obligation of magistrates to be respectful to jurors, [5] we do not find clear and convincing evidence that Magistrate Browning was rude to these jurors. We, therefore, agree with the Hearing Board and dismiss paragraph two.