Opinion ID: 1826525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: whether the composition of the judicial performance commission is unconstitutional.

Text: Judge Russell next argues that the Judicial Performance Commission violates due process because the same attorneys investigate judicial complaints, give advice to the Commission and prosecute cases before the Commission. Judge Russell alleges that the Executive Director of the Commission, who is in charge of travel vouchers and expense accounts of the Commissioners, also renders advice to and prosecutes cases before the Commission. Judge Russell concludes that the Commissioners therefore have a financial interest in pleasing the Executive Director. This Court has not directly addressed the issue of whether the combination of investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory functions in the Commission of Judicial Performance violates due process. However, this Court has addressed the combination of these functions in other fora. See McGowan v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 604 So.2d 312 (Miss. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1052, 113 S.Ct. 976, 122 L.Ed.2d 130 (1993); Harrison County School Bd. v. Morreale, 538 So.2d 1196 (Miss. 1989); Dampier v. Lawrence County School Dist., 344 So.2d 130 (Miss. 1977). The United States Supreme Court stated [t]hat the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions does not, without more, constitute a due process violation. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 58, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1470, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975). However, the Court cautioned that special facts and circumstances may produce a risk of unfairness which is intolerably high. Withrow, 421 U.S. at 58, 95 S.Ct. at 1470. However, one must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity of those serving as adjudicators; and ... must convince that, under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, conferring investigative and adjudicative powers on the same individuals poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented. Id. at 47, 95 S.Ct. at 1464. Judge Russell relies on In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955) in arguing that because the same attorneys who prosecute the case also advise the commission on whether a violation occurred violates due process. However, in Withrow, the Court explicitly stated that  Murchison has not been understood to stand for the broad rule that members of administrative agency may not investigate the facts, institute proceedings, and then make the necessary adjudications. Withrow, 421 U.S. at 53, 95 S.Ct. at 1467-68. Moreover, Murchison involved a state judge who sat as a one-man grand jury. The judge compelled witnesses to testify before him in secret about possible crimes. The judge cited two witnesses with criminal contempt and then proceeded to try and convict the same individuals of that offense. The Supreme Court held that such a procedure violated due process not only because the judge in effect became part of the prosecution and assumed an adversary position, but also because as a judge ... he very likely relied on his own personal knowledge and impression of what had occurred in the grand jury room, an impression that could not be tested by cross-examination. Withrow, 421 U.S. at 53, 95 S.Ct. at 1467. In the case at bar, the procedures of the Commission do not rise to the level of that present in Murchison. Here, the Rule 5 of the Commission states that either upon receipt of information regarding the judge's conduct or upon its own motion, the Commission will initiate a confidential inquiry into the allegations. After the preliminary inquiry, the Executive Director of the Commission shall make a report to the Commission. Rule 8 governs the formal hearing and requires the Commission to either employ a member of the State Bar to prepare and present the formal complaint to the Commission or direct the Executive Director to so represent the Commission as counsel. Following a formal hearing, the Commission or designated panel is required to prepare findings of fact and recommendations. The full Commission shall review the findings and recommendations of a panel. Recommendations of the Commission are then made to this Court which may accept, reject, modify in whole or in part the findings and recommendations of the Commission. Decisions from other states which have considered their own Judicial Commission are helpful. For example, the Supreme Court of Michigan stated, [t]he authority is legion in support of the proposition that combining the investigative and adjudicative roles in a single agency does not necessarily violate due process in administrative adjudications such as judicial fitness hearings. Matter of Del Rio, 400 Mich. 665, 256 N.W.2d 727, 736-37 (1977). [3] Here, as in Withrow, there appears to be no more evidence of bias or the risk of bias ... than inheres in the very fact that the Board had investigated and would now adjudicate. 421 U.S. at 54, 95 S.Ct. at 1468. The processes of the Commission do not in and of themselves appear to present an unacceptable risk of bias. This Court, when presented with a challenge to the Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board, held that at least on paper today, the Board seems to keep appropriately separate these functions.... McGowan v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 604 So.2d 312, 317 (Miss. 1992). Like the Oil & Gas Board, the Judicial Performance Commission, under its Rules, sits as an entity with authority independent of that of the agency's supervisor and staff. Id. The Commission argues in its brief that Commission counsel does not participate in the deliberation process. However, Judge Billy Joe Landrum, who served on the original panel which considered the charges against Judge Russell, testified that the Executive Director of the Commission may answer questions of Commission members after a hearing this, alone, is not necessarily violative of due process. There remains the fact that Judge Russell has not demonstrated that bias in fact permeates the process. However, in Withrow, the Court was cognizant that we should be alert to the possibilities of bias that may lurk in the way particular procedures actually work in practice. 421 U.S. at 54, 95 S.Ct. at 1468. Judge Russell argues that because the Executive Director of the Commission approves the expenses of Commission members, a possible financial motive exists for Commissioners to find in accordance with the Executive Director. In Withrow, the Court held [w]ithout a showing to the contrary, state administrators are assumed to be men of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances. 421 U.S. at 55, 95 S.Ct. at 1468 ( quoting United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 61 S.Ct. 999, 85 L.Ed. 1429 (1941)). Here, Judge Russell presents no specific foundation for suspecting that the Commission was in any way biased toward the Executive Director of the Commission or his investigation into Judge Russell. The United States Supreme Court has held that the standard used to evaluate allegations of financial bias as violations of due process is whether the ... situation is one which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused... . Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 93 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972). Here, the allegation of financial bias is at best tenuous. Here, the record contains no evidence that decisions adverse or contrary to Mr. Brantley will result in financial retribution via expense accounts. Here is simply not sufficient evidence of financial bias or motivation is present which would violate due process. Moreover, the conclusions of the Commission are merely recommendations to this Court and thus have no binding effect. Rather, this Court conducts de novo review of judicial misconduct proceedings and is the final arbiter of these matters.