Opinion ID: 4310123
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Undisputed Charges

Text: As a preliminary matter, Judge DuPont does not appear to dispute the JQC’s findings with respect to the charges alleged in paragraph 5 of the amended notice, alleging a violation of canon 7 by promising not to find statutes unconstitutional,5 or paragraph 10 of the amended notice, alleging violations of canons 1, 2A, and 7A by holding first appearances without counsel present. Those charges are supported by audio or video evidence of the alleged violations. Judge DuPont expressly admitted wrongdoing regarding holding first appearance hearings without counsel present. Because the JQC’s findings are undisputed and Judge DuPont has 5. Although Judge DuPont admits to making this statement, he asserts that he does not believe this statement violated canon 7 because he did not mean that he would never find a statute unconstitutional, only that he does not go into a case looking to overturn a statute but instead presumes statutes are constitutional. We reject this argument. Judge DuPont made the statement in a very public forum and failed to take any steps to correct the statement even after he realized that he “screwed up.” - 22 - admitted this misconduct, we conclude that the findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Murphy, 181 So. 3d 1169, 1176 (Fla. 2015) (citing In re Diaz, 908 So. 2d 334, 337 (Fla. 2005); In re Andrews, 875 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 2004)); In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77, 85 (Fla. 2003)). B. Dissemination of False and Misleading Information About the Anthonys Judge DuPont admitted that he acted inappropriately in failing to personally verify the negative and false information he disseminated about Malcolm Anthony and his family during the 2016 judicial campaign, but Judge DuPont claims that while he was “careless,” he did not “knowingly” violate the canons of judicial conduct because he did not “know” that the information was false and believed it was accurate. He testified that he relied completely on France and Tavernier to provide him accurate information and admitted doing “absolutely nothing” to verify any of the information. We reject Judge DuPont’s reasoning that he did not “knowingly” disseminate false information or misrepresent information about Anthony because he did not have personal knowledge that the information was false. Not only did Judge DuPont fail to verify the accuracy of the information he was provided as was his obligation, but it also appears that Judge DuPont actually manufactured some of the facts he disseminated in relation to that information. For example, Judge DuPont stated that Anthony was a “current member of - 23 - www.hideyourpast.com, which is a website that you join to hide your personal history.” First, hideyourpast.com LLC was administratively dissolved in 2013, three years before Judge DuPont made the statement that Anthony was a “current member.” Second, while Anthony had been a managing member of the LLC prior to 2013, there is nothing in the record to indicate that he personally used the services of the LLC, the purpose of which was to help people seal and expunge criminal records in connection with Anthony’s law practice. Judge DuPont also posted “Possible Matching Arrest Records for Family/Known Associate[s]” of Anthony on his website. The website listed three arrest records for a person named Andrea Anthony and twenty-one arrest records for a person named Elizabeth Anthony. Andrea Anthony is the name of Anthony’s wife, and Elizabeth Anthony is the name of his then twenty-one-year-old daughter. But neither of them had ever been arrested and thus could not be the individuals identified in the website. At the hearing, Judge DuPont testified that he did not know that Andrea and Elizabeth were relatives of Anthony; he stated that he thought they were possible family members. He admitted being only “careless to the point that [he] should have known that it was family.” Judge DuPont’s “careless” actions with respect to Anthony’s wife and daughter caused the potential for harm to both of them. There is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the JQC’s finding that such “carelessness” is inconsistent with a judge - 24 - acting in such a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and contrary to canon 2A. We therefore conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the JQC’s findings that Judge DuPont violated canons 1, 2A, and 7A by knowingly misrepresenting facts about the Anthonys during his 2016 campaign. C. The Search During the 2011 Family Court Hearing With regard to the search during the 2011 family court hearing, Judge DuPont admits that the search and seizure occurred, but he emphasizes that it was not forceful and he felt that it was appropriate because other judges in the Seventh Circuit employed similar techniques. Judge DuPont’s motives in conducting the search may have been “pure” as he claims, but we have previously condemned such unlawful, judicially ordered seizures in open court, see In re Turner, 76 So. 3d 898, 906 (Fla. 2011), and we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the JQC’s findings that Judge DuPont violated canons 1 and 2A. D. Discipline The JQC recommends that Judge DuPont be removed from office. Under article V, section 12(c)(1) of the Florida Constitution, we have discretion to either accept, reject, or modify the commission’s findings and recommendation of - 25 - discipline. In re Renke, 933 So. 2d 482, 493 (Fla. 2006). “Although this Court gives the findings and recommendations of the JQC great weight, the ultimate power and responsibility in making a determination to discipline a judge rests with this Court.” Id. at 493. We are authorized to remove a judge from office for “conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary demonstrating a present unfitness to hold office.” Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const. “[T]he object of disciplinary proceedings is not for the purpose of inflicting punishment, but rather to gauge a judge’s fitness to serve as an impartial judicial officer.” In re Dempsey, 29 So. 3d 1030, 1034 (Fla. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting In re McMillan, 797 So. 2d 560, 571 (Fla. 2001)). We examine judicial misconduct for present fitness to hold office “from two perspectives: its effect on the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary as reflected in its impact on the judge’s standing in the community, and the degree to which past misconduct points to future misconduct fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office.” In re Murphy, 181 So. 3d at 1177 (quoting In re Sloop, 946 So. 2d 1046, 1055 (Fla. 2006)). “It is clear that a member of the judiciary or judicial candidate should not [intentionally] mislead the public by placing factually incorrect statements in campaign materials.” In re Dempsey, 29 So. 3d at 1033. And “[w]e have repeatedly placed judicial candidates on notice that this type of misconduct will not be tolerated.” Id. - 26 - We have also repeatedly warned that we will not allow judges who have committed egregious misconduct during a judicial campaign in order to attain office to serve the term of their judgeship. See In re Renke, 933 So. 2d at 495; In re McMillan, 797 So. 2d at 573; In re Alley, 699 So. 2d 1369, 1369, 1370 (Fla. 1997). To do so “clearly sends the wrong message to future candidates; that is, the end justifies the means and, thus, all is fair so long as the candidate wins.” In re Renke, 933 So. 2d at 495 (quoting In re McMillan, 797 So. 2d at 573). Judge DuPont’s assertion that he had no evil intent in disseminating the false information about Anthony is irrelevant. As stated in article V, “[m]alafides, scienter or moral turpitude on the part of a justice or judge shall not be required for removal from office of a justice or judge whose conduct demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office.” Art. V, § 12, Fla. Const. Further, in holding first appearances early on the Saturday of Memorial Day weekend in 2016 without counsel present in order to suit his campaign schedule, Judge DuPont blatantly disregarded the rules of criminal procedure and disrespected the attorneys and the rights of the inmates involved in the proceeding. This behavior was not inadvertent, and Judge DuPont has offered no excuse or explanation for it. Judge DuPont’s misconduct both negatively affects the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary and points to the potential of future misconduct fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office. - 27 - Like Judges Renke, McMillan, and Alley, Judge DuPont committed egregious misconduct during his campaign to attain his office. Under these circumstances, we cannot allow Judge DuPont to serve the term of his judgeship. Based on the misrepresentations Judge DuPont made during his campaign to attain his office as well as the other instances of misconduct during his time in office, we conclude that Judge DuPont has demonstrated a present unfitness to hold office and approve the recommended discipline of removal from office.