Opinion ID: 1057813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Courtroom Appearance

Text: In June of 2011, the case of Carmella Brenzie v. Mark A. Brenzie was pending in the JD&R court in Hopewell. On June 22, 2011, Mark Brenzie (Brenzie), by counsel, filed a motion dated June 9, 2011, requesting that the judges of the juvenile and domestic relations court recuse themselves because it was well known in the general public that Brenzie was in a close personal relationship with a sitting judge of this Court. That motion was granted, and Retired Judge Jannene L. Shannon was designated by the Chief Justice to hear the case. On July 27, 2011, Judge Shannon heard the matter of Carmella Brenzie v. Mark A. Brenzie. Judge Waymack accompanied 3 Brenzie into the courthouse and the courtroom, and she sat in a chair at the back of the courtroom. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for Carmella Brenzie (Carmella), Adrienne Eliades (Eliades), informed Judge Shannon that a motion to recuse had been filed in this case because it was known that Brenzie was in a relationship with a judge from the jurisdiction. Eliades explained that the judge in question, Judge Waymack, was sitting in the courtroom. Eliades argued that Judge Waymack was the reason for the recusal, so she should not be permitted to be in the courtroom. Counsel for Brenzie, Stephen Heretick (Heretick), responded that Brenzie did not plan on calling Judge Waymack as a witness and that she was present in the courtroom merely as a member of the public. Judge Shannon asked Judge Waymack if she was the judge they were describing. Judge Waymack responded affirmatively. Judge Shannon then stated that she thought it would be better if you were not in the courtroom. Judge Waymack replied, All right. Certainly. Certainly. Judge Shannon stated that she thought that would [p]rotect at least the appearance of propriety, even though there would be no impropriety, per se. Judge Waymack left the courtroom. In Judge Waymack's answer to the Notice, she admitted that she attended the court hearing with Brenzie, but she denied that doing so violated any applicable Canons. Judge Waymack also 4 alleged that she had previously contacted counsel for the Commission through her counsel and obtained advice that it was permissible for her to be a factual witness in related proceedings, but not a character witness.