Opinion ID: 1880792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: count 7: impeding investigation

Text: Count 7 alleges the following: Between 1996 and 1997, during an ongoing investigation by the Judicial Qualifications Commission into certain allegations concerning Jones, Jones gave a false statement to the Commission's investigator about his knowledge of certain information. ... Between 1996 and 1997, during [the same investigation], Jones stated or suggested to other court employees that if he got into any trouble, he would take other judges with him, or ruin careers, or in some fashion retaliate against other judges. In early 1996, a secretary in Jones' office area, Debra Peck, told Judge Thomas McQuade, the presiding judge at that time, that she could no longer work with Jones. As a result, McQuade asked Jones to switch offices with Judge John McGrath. McGrath used a wheelchair, and the change of offices would have allowed McGrath to have easier access to the courtrooms. When Jones refused to move, McQuade told Jones that he had to move because Peck could no longer work with him. Jones moved, and a letter was sent by McQuade to the other judges and court staff stating that Jones voluntarily moved to accommodate McGrath. When the investigators for the commission asked Jones if his move had anything to do with Peck, Jones responded that it did not. Jones testified that he had not completely made up his mind about moving to accommodate McGrath when he was told about Peck and that he really did voluntarily move. Jones admits that he made comments to Wagner and Ashford that he would take other judges with him and other similar remarks. The special master found that although Jones made a false statement to the investigator and made the comments listed in the allegation, neither the false statement nor the comments impeded the investigation. However, the commission determined that the false statement was intended to mislead and interfere with an ongoing investigation. We agree with the special master and conclude that although the false statement and comments did occur, there is not clear and convincing evidence that the conduct interfered with the investigation.