Opinion ID: 1162726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: willful misconduct: improper public comment

Text: The commission found that appellant violated Canon 3(A)(6) of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct by making public comments concerning pending and impending litigation. [32] The commission found that such violations of the code occurred in October 1986, and in April and May of 1987. Accordingly, the commission concluded that appellant had engaged in a pattern of making improper comments to news media concerning pending and impending litigation. Further, in light of their persistent and improper nature, the commission concluded that appellant's improper public remarks must be deemed willful misconduct constituting an independent basis for removal. Appellant contends that the commission's findings and conclusions respecting the comments appellant made in April and May of 1987 cannot be sustained and must be reversed. [33] We agree. All the remarks in question were made by appellant and reported in the media after the commission conducted its probable cause hearing and after the commission entered its order of formal complaint. The special prosecutor did not thereafter attempt to amend the formal complaint to allege that these remarks constituted misconduct, nor did he provide notice to appellant that the exhibits (newspaper articles) pertaining to the comments in question would be submitted as evidence at the formal hearing. See Interim Rule 9(b) (notice must be provided to judge of charges against him and the alleged facts underlying the charges); Interim Rule 11(e) (the special prosecutor shall promptly provide discovery of any additional materials or information subject to disclosure). Consequently, no evidence of these remarks was admitted at the probable cause hearing, nor did the commission's order of formal complaint impart notice sufficient to provide appellant with a reasonable opportunity to defend against the charges. See Interim Rule 15(a). See also Kennick v. Com'n on Judicial Performance, 787 P.2d 591, 598 (Cal. 1990) (court refused to adopt commission determinations based upon findings outside scope of a notice of formal proceedings). Under these circumstances, and despite appellant's failure to request a continuance, we conclude that it was fundamentally unfair to require appellant to defend against these charges at the formal hearing. We therefore vacate the commission's findings respecting these remarks. In so doing, we necessarily reject the commission's determination that appellant engaged in a pattern of making improper comments. As noted above, however, the commission also found that appellant improperly commented on pending litigation, the Cunningham matter, in October of 1986. We have considered appellant's contentions respecting this finding, and we conclude that they are without merit. Further, we conclude that, when coupled with appellant's willful misconduct relating to his long-standing abuse of the judicial contempt power, sufficient willful misconduct was established on this record to warrant the sanction of removal.