Opinion ID: 2549762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Due process in discovery

Text: Testifying before the Interbranch Commission, the Board's deputy chief counsel identified judicial disciplinary proceedings as `not a criminal proceeding against a judge. It's really a civil administrative disciplinary proceeding with what has been identified as quasi-criminal overtones.' Appellant's Brief, at 33 (quoting N.T. Interbranch Commission Proceedings, 2/2/10, at 121). Appellant argues because the deputy chief counsel, who oversaw the Board's responses to her discovery requests, did not understand judicial disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, she was denied due process. The Board contends appellant fails to raise any appellate issue, as the Court of Judicial Discipline's rules, and not counsel's perceptions, governed discovery. Judicial conduct proceedings have been held to be quasi-criminal in nature; thus, the defendant is granted constitutional rights afforded to criminal defendants. In re Berkhimer, 593 Pa. 366, 930 A.2d 1255, 1258 (2007) (citing In re Chiovero, 524 Pa. 181, 570 A.2d 57, 61 (1990)). However, appellant fails to specify how her constitutional rights were violated because counsel stated overtones instead of nature. She does not identify any discovery violation or other violation of her rights resulting from this statement. Accordingly, this claim fails for lack of development. See Walter, at 566.