Opinion ID: 1280583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Roll Call Matters

Text: In March or April 2003, respondent initiated a procedure in both Simpsonville and Fountain Inn Municipal Courts pursuant to which defendants charged with magisterial level offenses who requested jury trials were required to appear in respondent's court once a week and answer a jury trial roll call at the conclusion of the other business of the court even when no jury trials were scheduled on those dates and even when no term for jury trials had been scheduled. [2] The defendants were required to appear on the date the bench trial had originally been scheduled and once a week thereafter until there was a disposition of their case or an attorney made an appearance on their behalf. Initially, respondent handled this procedure by issuing subpoenas to the defendants. Thereafter, respondent prepared a form for use in both the Simpsonville and Fountain Inn Municipal Courts. On April 17, 1985, the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court issued an administrative order for magistrate and municipal courts which provides, in part, ... that a person charged with a ... traffic offense triable in a ... municipal court may make written demand for jury trial prior to the time and date set for bench trial, and the case shall be forthwith continued until the next available time reserved for jury trials, thereby relieving defendant of the responsibility for the appearance at the originally scheduled bench trial. This order is a part of the Magistrate's and Municipal Court Judge's Bench Book provided to each and every magistrate and municipal court judge by South Carolina Court Administration. Respondent was, upon appointment, given a copy of the Bench Book containing the administrative order. Respondent recognizes that (1) the jury trial roll call procedure he implemented is in violation of that order; (2) requiring defendants to appear at previously scheduled bench trials after they have requested a jury trial is in violation of the administrative order; (3) he was without authority to issue subpoenas for jury trial roll call and that doing so was in contravention of the administrative order; (4) he was without authority to issue orders requiring defendants to appear for jury trial roll call and that doing so was in violation of the administrative order; and (5) it was inappropriate to coerce defendants to obtain an attorney, especially for minor traffic offenses, and inappropriate to treat defendants without attorneys different from those with attorneys. One defendant, who was charged with not having a brake light, requested a jury trial. The defendant appeared at approximately three roll calls. On one occasion, respondent stated ... you've requested a jury trial ... you will be here every Tuesday until your case is called, your case is tried, or an attorney sends notice of representation. You will be here for roll call ... you requested a jury trial. You're being called every Tuesday for roll call until the case is tried ... Okay? It's that simple. On one occasion, the defendant requested to be excused early after appearing in a timely fashion for roll call. He was held in contempt and sentenced to twenty-four hours in jail. This occurred after respondent learned that the defendant had asked to be allowed to answer roll call prior to the conclusion of the other business of the court to tend to some personal business the defendant felt was pressing. Respondent represents the sentence for contempt was warranted because the defendant was disrespectful to the court. The record indicates that respondent stated to the defendant, You're the one who asked for a jury trial. You're gonna waste the city's money on a jury trial? You don't think that I, a judge, would give you a fair hearing? You want a jury to hear it? You want to cost the city all that money for a jury? You're the one making a big deal of it!.... So you think a jury trial is fair, so that means you don't think I can be fair.... You've got things you've got to do so you come in and you mouth off, you mouth off to the Clerk of Court, you mouth off to the administrative judge and you come in my courtroom with an attitude.... Then respondent asked the ministerial judge, What do you think would be appropriate for [defendant]? The ministerial judge stated he thought [t]wentyfour hours was appropriate. Respondent then asked the clerk, Okay, madam clerk, what do you think would be appropriate? The clerk responded, The same. Thereafter, respondent sentenced the defendant to twenty-four hours in jail. Respondent now recognizes that this was an inappropriate delegation of his judicial authority and that he compromised the independence of the judiciary by soliciting input on the disposition of the matter from the ministerial judge and the clerk of court and by indicating that the ministerial judge and the clerk of court were in a special position to influence the judge. The following week, the defendant appeared as required for jury trial roll call and respondent was advised that the defendant had withdrawn his request for a jury trial. Respondent proceeded to hear the case and dismiss the brake light charge against the defendant. The defendant advised Disciplinary Counsel that he withdrew his request for a jury trial to avoid having to come to roll call each week, to avoid hiring an attorney for an alleged brake light violation, and because he felt he could not get a fair trial from respondent. A second defendant, who had been charged with a speeding violation and had requested a jury trial, was told to be in court on the date his bench trial had originally been scheduled. On that date, no jury trials were scheduled or held. Respondent suggested to the defendant that he might want to withdraw his request for a jury trial. When the defendant elected not to do so, respondent issued a subpoena requiring the defendant to appear again the following week despite the fact that no jury trials were scheduled or held on that date. This process continued for two weeks. When the defendant appeared on the third occasion, respondent demanded that the defendant provide his social security number to be included on the jury trial roll call order. When the defendant objected to providing that information, respondent threatened the defendant with contempt of court. [3] It was the defendant's contention that the use of a person's social security number for such purposes is proscribed by federal law. Respondent is now aware that such is the case. On the same date, respondent issued an order directing the defendant to appear in court at 10:00 a.m. every Tuesday thereafter until the completion of the trial of his case or receipt by the court of a letter of representation from an attorney. Under this arrangement, the defendant was required to appear approximately ten times for jury roll call, sit through the other business of the court and then be excused until the next week. The only reason given by respondent for requiring the appearances was to ... make sure we don't lose track of each other. Numerous other defendants who requested a jury trial were also required to appear before respondent on the date set for their bench trials and to appear for jury trial roll calls every Tuesday for weeks thereafter. On each occasion, roll was called at the conclusion of the other business before the court and the defendants were then allowed to leave the court with the requirement that they be back at the same time each week until their cases were concluded or they obtained the services of an attorney to represent them on their charges. The roll call requirement caused some defendants to travel long distances on a weekly basis and caused others to be absent from their jobs. At least three defendants who either did not appear on the date of their originally scheduled bench trial or who did not appear for jury trial roll call were tried in their absence and convicted of the offenses with which they had been charged. Respondent maintains the purpose of the jury trial roll calls was to keep track of defendants who often ended up not availing themselves of the jury trials they had requested. In addition, respondent contends that, while awaiting roll call, defendants would be educated about respondent and his court and many would determine respondent was lenient and fair and that it would be in their best interest to withdraw their request for a jury trial and instead let their case be concluded by a bench trial before respondent. Respondent now recognizes that, in addition to being contrary to the plain language of the administrative order, the jury trial roll call procedure acted to deter persons from exercising their right to a trial by jury and their right to be released on bond pending trial.