Opinion ID: 1496361
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allegations Related to Landlord-Tenant Case

Text: Mr. Madison appeared on March 16, 2005 in Jackson County circuit court representing a landlord seeking back rent and possession of an apartment. Mr. Madison did not bring a witness for the landlord. The tenant appeared and disputed the amount claimed due. The judge told Mr. Madison and the tenant to go into the hall to try to settle the matter, an approach he usually found to be effective. While Mr. Madison later claimed he and the tenant had gone to the hall and discussed the matter, neither the judge nor his assistant observed Mr. Madison leave the court-room. They saw him return to his seat in the courtroom and begin staring at the judge in such a manner that the judge's administrative assistant became concerned about Mr. Madison's demeanor. She continued to watch Mr. Madison so that, if needed, she quickly could press the panic button used to summon the sheriff's department in emergencies. Ten minutes later, the judge called Mr. Madison's case a second time. Mr. Madison told the judge that the tenant admitted she had not paid rent but claimed the landlord's agent had excused her rent for a period of time. The judge offered several future dates for trying the case, making it clear that he believed Mr. Madison would need a witness to make his case in light of the tenant's anticipated denial of the debt. Mr. Madison rejected the suggestion, stating that he was unavailable on the proposed dates, believed he could handle the matter with cross-examination rather than with his own witness and still hoped to handle the return today. In deference to Mr. Madison's wishes, the judge came back to the case after he had cleared the rest of his docket, at which point Mr. Madison was becoming increasingly agitated. The judge put the tenant under oath and questioned her himself, as he said was his practice in cases involving pro se parties. [7] At the conclusion of the judge's questioning, he ruled that all but the last month's rent had been excused. He did so without expressly inviting Mr. Madison to cross-examine the tenant. Mr. Madison never asked that he be allowed to cross-examine the tenant either. Instead, he began arguing with the judge, telling him that he was wrong on the law. The judge advised Mr. Madison that it was not his intention to argue about the judgment, whereupon they had the following exchange. MR. MADISON: Judge, I justI object. There's no basis in the law for you to excuse her rent, and JUDGE: Sir, I'm not making any comment in regard to the evidence. You're out of line in regard to arguing with me in regard to the judgment. It has been rendered already. Now, as an attorney, you know that there are appropriate manners within which you can present any claims or arguments that you have with the court. And what I'm doing at this time, as stated before, is entering a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the possession of the property and $350 for the rent plus costs. And that is the judgment. That's it. That's it. Okay. MR. MADISON: There's no basis in law. No basis in law. JUDGE: Mr. Madison, this is a question of fact, not law. MR. MADISON: She admitted that she didn't JUDGE: Mr. Madison, we had an issue. You have the means by which to take it up. Don't argue with me. MR. MADISON: I'm not arguing. I'm just telling you the law, Judge. No way around it JUDGE: We can go back to MR. MADISON:Judge Sawyer [it is unclear to whom Mr. Madison was referring] at the appellate court, whatever. JUDGE: Mr. Madison. MR. MADISON: Judge JUDGE: Get out of this courtroom. Okay. That's it. I'm through talking to you. MR. MADISON: No basis in law for that. The judge's administrative assistant testified that Mr. Madison's tone was very defiant during this exchange. It is unclear from the recording whether Mr. Madison's voice was sufficiently loud to be deemed yelling, as Mr. Madison was not standing near the microphone, but it is clear that his tone increased greatly in volume during the exchange. A lawyer present in the courtroom during this time testified at Mr. Madison's hearing that he remembered thinking to himself then that he would never talk to a judge like that. An employee of this lawyer who also witnessed the events testified that Mr. Madison had an arrogant attitude, that his behavior was disruptive and disrespectful, and that people in the courtroom were shocked. This employee also testified that Mr. Madison's facial expressions and body language conveyed that he was very irritated with the judge and that Mr. Madison didn't think the judge knew what he was doing. While Mr. Madison says this testimony all should be discounted because none of the witnesses could recreate the exact words used or reasons why they thought his behavior was inappropriate, this Court finds their testimony credible, as did the panel. Although it is obvious from Mr. Madison's statements that he was very upset with the judge's ruling, which he felt was not legally supportable, he specifically chose not to appeal the ruling. Instead, later that day Mr. Madison sent a letter to the judge that stated, in part: you were not faithful to the law. you showed contempt for the law and for this lawyer in your ruthless abuse of power and contempt for the rule of law, you silenced me and ordered me out of your court. your decision was unfair and blatantly without legal basis. An appeal would find that you abused discretion and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. The consequence of your unethical conduct is the loss of money to my client.... So, you wrongfully took from my client $1,005.00 today and gave it to the defendant. Mr. Madison later testified he wrote the letter simply because he wanted to tell the judge that what the judge did was wrong. He stood by the accuracy of his letter before the panel and before this Court, arguing that the statements in the letter were factually correct and only made after research and investigation. Yet, although the letter accuses the judge of misconduct and unethical behavior, Mr. Madison did not file a complaint with the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline, and, although he says he would win on appeal, he did not file an appeal.