Opinion ID: 2320064
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Criticism of fellow judges State v. Fletcher.

Text: In respect of Count Three, Judge Mathesius stipulated in writing as to the events that unfolded after the August 31, 2005 Appellate Division reversal of a conviction and sentence arising from a trial over which he presided. State v. Fletcher, 380 N.J.Super. 80, 880 A. 2d 1171 (App.Div. 2005). In Fletcher, the Appellate Division held that there were two separate sources of reversible error. First, the panel determined that there was error in the jury instruction on accomplice liability requir[ing] reversal of defendant's convictions. Id. at 85, 880 A. 2d 1171. [4] Second, the Appellate Division conclude[d] that defendant's [pretrial] statements were not made freely and voluntarily and may not be admitted into evidence at defendant's second trial. Ibid. Judge Mathesius's actions following the Appellate Division's reversal of Fletcher were, in short, inexplicable. On September 14, 2005, while attending a dinner held by the Mercer County Bar Association, Judge Mathesius, without identifying himself, approached the law clerk of the author of the Appellate Division opinion and told the law clerk to deliver a message to her judge: that the judge was inexperienced and not competent. On September 26, 2005, Judge Mathesius took matters a step further and wrote to the Appellate Division Judge. [5] In that letter, Judge Mathesius bluntly asserted that the Appellate Division Judge was uninformed and impractical. Judge Mathesius accused the Appellate Division Judge of having engaged in a folly that breed[s] a sense of Dickensian disrespect of the law not only to its practitioners, but to the general public at large[,] and concluded that the Appellate Division opinion in Fletcher indulge[d] in fictive and romantic imagination. [6] Upon reflection, Judge Mathesius admitted that, in his comments to the law clerk, he was lash[ing] out against the judge[.] Upon further consideration of the contents of the letter, Judge Mathesius conceded that [i]t's hard for me to say how inappropriate it was. By way of saying, I could say grossly inappropriate, I could say hideously inappropriate, or I can just plain say stupid. Judge Mathesius summed it up best when he concluded that the letter was improper in every respect. The Advisory Committee concluded that Judge Mathesius's actions demonstrate gross disrespect of the judicial system, the settled procedures for the handling and disposition of cases, and for the appellate process and judicial review in the adjudication of cases. They constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of Rule 2:15-8(a)(6). [Judge Mathesius's] expression of his personal views and strong criticism to various persons manifested a lack of proper judicial temperament, balance and judgment. It exhibited disrespect and a lack of deference to appellate courts that reflects adversely on the proper and sound administration of justice and [Judge Mathesius's] capacity to preside over cases fairly, objectively and without prejudgment, consistent with appellate dispositions. These expressions of personal feelings were inconsistent with the deference and respect required in the orderly and proper administration of justice, and violated Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to observe high standards of conduct to maintain the integrity and independence of the Judiciary, and Canon 2A, which requires judges to respect and comply with the law and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.