Opinion ID: 1843960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ex-Parte Communications

Text: The Commission also found that Judge Cooks violated Canon 3A(6), which provides in part that a judge should not permit private or ex parte interviews, arguments or communications designed to influence his or her judicial action in any case. The first violation allegedly occurred when Judge Cooks visited Jane Abshire in the Tau Center in November of 1992 where Ms. Abshire assured Judge Cooks of her innocence. The second violation allegedly occurred when Judge Cooks discussed the newspaper accounts of the Abshire case with Sue Fontenot at the time in which the Abshire writ application was pending with the Third Circuit. We find no violation of Canon 3A(6) by virtue of Judge Cooks' visit to Jane Abshire in November of 1992 because at that time, the Abshire case was not pending before Judge Cooks. However, as discussed below, this visit provides one of the bases on which Judge Cooks was obligated to recuse herself from the Abshire case. [12] Judge Cooks' conversation with Sue Fontenot about newspaper accounts of the Abshire case at the time the case was pending before the Third Circuit is more problematic. While ex parte communications between attorneys and judges are not prohibited as long as they are not designed to influence [the judge's] action in any case, this conversation must be viewed against the backdrop of the 100 telephone calls Fontenot placed to Judge Cooks between January 1, 1993 and May 28, 1993, including a 74 minute long distance call Judge Cooks made to Fontenot on May 22, 1993. However, other than discussing the newspaper articles, there is no evidence that Judge Cooks and Fontenot discussed the Abshire case in these telephone conversations. Accordingly, we have no basis to determine if these conversations were designed to influence Judge Cooks' opinion in the Abshire case. While we certainly do not condone such extensive communication between a judge and an attorney in a case before her, the mere number of telephone calls, many of which occurred prior to the time the Abshire case was pending before the Third Circuit, along with the isolated discussion regarding the newspaper accounts of the Abshire case, do not constitute proof of a violation by clear and convincing evidence.