Opinion ID: 1058283
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commission's Consideration of Prior Contacts

Text: Judge Taylor cites Code § 17.1-913 to support her argument that it was improper for the Commission to admit and consider evidence of Judge Taylor's prior contacts with the Commission. Specifically, she notes that the statute provides that all prior contacts not filed with the Supreme Court in connection with a formal complaint filed with that tribunal, shall be kept in the confidential files of the Commission. Code § 17.1-913(A). Judge Taylor contends that Rule 16 of the Rules of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission applies and requires that the records of a proceeding concluded without an adverse finding by the Commission against a judge . . . be maintained in the Commission's confidential files. 15 VAC § 10-10-10. Judge Taylor asserts that neither Code § 17.1-913 nor Commission Rule 16 allow for the removal of the confidentiality of records of complaints that were not deemed well founded, and the 2002 and 2006 prior contacts were not determined to be well founded. Additionally, Judge Taylor argues that unlike Shull, in which Judge Shull's demeanor was discussed in a prior informal proceeding and that proceeding was later considered by this Court for purposes of disposition, the prior contacts Judge Taylor had with the Commission were not directly relevant to the issues now before the Court. Rather, Judge Taylor states they are irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative of any issue in dispute. The prior contacts, Judge Taylor contends, are irrelevant because the 2002 contact related to an in camera interview and the 2006 contact related to a complaint about starting court late, and both were resolved in her favor. Judge Taylor asks this Court to disregard the prior contacts evidence when determining whether she committed any violation during the 2007 events at issue. The Commission relies on Shull to support its argument that consideration of Judge Taylor's prior contacts with the Commission was appropriate. 274 Va. at 676-77, 651 S.E.2d at 659. According to the Commission, this Court expressly referred to and relied upon evidence of prior contacts in its decision to remove Judge Shull from office. The Commission maintains that with regards to the issue of disposition, this Court should be presented with evidence regarding a judge's past contacts with the Commission. The Commission cites Rule 13(B) of the Rules of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, which provides that any material [and] relevant evidence may be admitted. 15 VAC § 10-10-10. Additionally, the Commission contends that evidence surrounding Judge Taylor's 2002 informal contact with the Commission was relevant to show whether she was amenable to discipline by the Commission or whether the matter needed to be referred to this Court. The Commission maintains that Code § 17.1-913, regarding confidentiality of the record sent by the Commission to this Court in support of a complaint, and Commission Rule 16, regarding preservation of files at the Commission, are not relevant to the admissibility of evidence of prior contacts at the evidentiary hearing. We hold that the evidence regarding Judge Taylor's prior contacts with the Commission was properly admitted by the Commission and is now properly before us for review. At the outset of the Commission hearing, counsel for the Commission stated that the exhibits are all in the red binder there on the witness desk. . . . But the sides are in agreement that there's no objection to the admission of any of the exhibits. Counsel for Judge Taylor acknowledged the agreement as to the exhibits contained in the binder. The binder, which is part of the record before this Court, contains the Commission's exhibits described as [c]orrespondence related to judge's 2001-02 informal contact with JIRC, [r]edacted annotated agenda from JIRC meeting 4-19-02, [t]ranscript of judge's informal meeting with JIRC dated 5-21-02, and [c]orrespondence related to judge's 2006 informal contact with JIRC. Judge Taylor's agreement to the Commission's admission of the exhibits is fatal to her argument that the Commission erred in admitting those same exhibits. Rule 5:25.