Opinion ID: 1345203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sanction for judge turco's conduct

Text: We turn finally to the proper sanction for Judge Turco's violation of Canons 1 and 2(A). RCW 2.64.055 provides for progressive levels of discipline by the Commission and the Supreme Court against a judge who has engaged in misconduct. Censure is defined in RCW 2.64.010(2) as: [A] written action of the commission that requires a judge or justice to appear personally before the commission, and that finds that conduct of the judge or justice violates a rule of judicial conduct, detrimentally affects the integrity of the judiciary, undermines the public confidence in the administration of justice, and may or may not require a recommendation to the supreme court that the judge or justice be suspended or removed. A censure shall include a requirement that the judge or justice follow a specified corrective course of action. By contrast, only we may suspend or remove a judge. Suspension is merited if we find the conduct of a judge or justice is a violation of a rule of judicial conduct and seriously impairs the integrity of the judiciary and substantially undermines the public confidence in the administration of justice to such a degree the judge or justice should be relieved of the duties of his or her office by the court for a specified period of time, as determined by the court. RCW 2.64.010(8). Similarly, removal is warranted if we find the conduct of a judge or justice is a violation of a rule of judicial conduct and seriously impairs the integrity of the judiciary and substantially undermines the public confidence in the administration of justice to such a degree that the judge or justice should be relieved of all duties of his or her office. RCW 2.64.010(5). The Commission here recommended Judge Turco's removal. Judge Turco asserts removal is too severe a penalty for his conduct and contends censure is the only appropriate sanction. He notes the two judicial discipline cases in which we ordered removal of a judge from the bench, Deming and Ritchie, involved far more egregious circumstances. Judge Deming was charged with a broad spectrum of misconduct: (a) having a personal relationship with a probation department employee; (b) sexual harassment of female employees; (c) threats to the director of the probation department; and (d) aberrant and unstable courtroom behavior. We concluded: His actions were unprofessional, demeaning and embarrassing to the involuntary participants, who suffered varying degrees of anger, anguish, intimidation and humiliation. Deming, 108 Wash.2d at 117, 736 P.2d 639. In Ritchie, we ordered removal of Judge Ritchie after recounting his pervasive misuse of government travel funds over a five-year period involving multiple conversions of public funds for personal benefit. In those cases, we established a set of criteria to determine if removal of a judge was the proper sanction: 1. Whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct. Judge Turco claims shoving his wife was an isolated instance. The Commission argues it was part of a pattern of conduct exhibiting disregard for domestic violence. 2. The nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct. Judge Turco again notes the alleged act of misconduct occurred only once. 3. Whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom. The conduct occurred out of court. 4. Whether the misconduct occurred in the judge's official capacity or in his private life. Judge Turco asserts the misconduct occurred in his private life, outside the courtroom, and therefore ought not be the basis of removal or suspension. The Commission urges Judge Turco's misconduct, even if it occurred outside court and in his private life, reflects adversely on his fitness for hearing and deciding domestic violence cases, when considered in connection with his written admonishment. 5. Whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred. Judge Turco continues to deny he shoved his wife intentionally. He claims the contact was wholly accidental. His failure at the time of the incident to help his wife up, or to apologize to her, combined with his continued lack of contrition, militate against him under this criterion. 6. Whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his conduct. The judge admits that whatever happened is not likely to occur again now that he and his wife are divorced. He notes, however, that he has not been disciplined since December 8, 1995. Again, his argument displays a decided lack of contrition. 7. The length of service on the bench. Judge Turco ascended to the bench in 1991, and has served since that time. 8. Whether there have been prior complaints about this judge. In addition to the written admonition discussed above, Judge Turco stipulated to an earlier censure for flipping a coin in open court to decide a disputed traffic violation. The call was against the defendant, and Judge Turco fined him $20. Thus, Judge Turco had two instances of discipline prior to the current proceeding. Judge Turco acknowledges these prior cases count against him, but argues they should amount to no more than a censure rather than removal or suspension. 9. The effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary. Judge Turco was asked at the hearing, Would it instill confidence in the judiciary knowing that someone in your position could do that in public or private? He answered, I don't think anyif they find it's an assault, I don't think that instills confidence in anybody about anything period. Report of Proceedings at 123. This criterion presents the core question in this case: does Judge Turco's conduct, taken as a whole, reflect adversely on the public's respect for the judiciary, especially taking into consideration the major role municipal court judges play in domestic violence cases? 10. The extent to which the judge exploited his position to satisfy personal desires. This criterion is not a factor here. Taking the Deming Ritchie criteria into account, we agree with Judge Turco that the recommended sanction of his removal from the bench was an excessive sanction. We are mindful of the belief we articulated in Kaiser, 111 Wash.2d at 290, 759 P.2d 392, that the people's choice in judicial elections should not be lightly set aside: If a judge flagrantly and intentionally violates his oath of office or misuses his power in performing his duties this court should fulfill its obligation to remove that judge from office. That sanction, however, should be sparingly applied. At the same time, a sanction limited to public disapproval of Judge Turco's boorish behavior is plainly insufficient. Only one week before he was involved in the incident in question here, Judge Turco stipulated to a written admonishment. In that stipulation, Judge Turco admitted to saying to a defendant whom he had just found guilty of assault in the fourth degree, [Y]ou didn't need to bite her. Maybe you needed to boot her in the rear end, but you didn't need to bite her. In another incident of fourth degree assault, Judge Turco said to the defendant, [F]ifty years ago I suppose they would have given you an award rather than ... what we're doing now. In yet another incident in open court, after Judge Turco dismissed the defendant when the victim failed to appear, he said to a city attorney, [M]y opinion is ... that the police do 95% of the work when they separate the parties, so that takes care of 95% of the problem. You know, all we're doing is slapping someone after the police have remedied the situation. But, so be it. So I mean there's nothing to get excited about dismissing these cases. As the Commission concludes, Judge Turco is not subject to discipline for an isolated incident of violence against his wife, but in the context of his earlier admonishment for admitted comments on the bench reflecting a lack of concern for domestic violence and its victims. Br. of Commission at 25. The Commission observes a significant part of the Tacoma Municipal Court's workload results from assaults related to domestic violence. Id. at 1-2. We agree with the Commission's concerns regarding the timing of this matter and the fact Judge Turco sits on a bench that hears numerous domestic violence cases. Victims of domestic violence can take little consolation in presenting their cases to a judge who has shown unacceptable insensitivity to domestic violence by his own words and deeds. [7] Judge Turco's conduct reflected adversely upon the integrity of the judiciary and undermined public confidence in the court system. RCW 2.64.010(8). We, therefore, impose the following sanction on Judge Ralph G. Turco: Judge Turco shall be publicly censured for his misconduct and suspended from the Tacoma Municipal Court bench without compensation from October 21, 1998, through the remainder of his term in office. [8] Judge Turco may not serve in any future judicial capacity until he has completed a domestic violence program as described in RCW 26.50.150 satisfactory to the Commission.