Court Opinion

ID: 9774406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:19:10.550426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:07.998356
License: Public Domain

RENDLEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The motion for rehearing in this cause was sustained and the former opinion of the court withdrawn and has no precedential effect. The case was reargued and in that resubmission the court was ably assisted by the additional briefs and arguments of counsel. The majority in the per curiam opinion have adopted a standard for judicial disciplinary proceedings by which this Court will make “an independent review” giving “substantial consideration and due deference to the Commission’s ability to judge the credibility of the witnesses appearing before it.” Although such “independent review” is, in my view, more acceptable than the de novo standard originally promulgated in the now withdrawn opinion, I believe that the Commission’s determination of facts should be shown greater deference than the majority would accord. I believe that reasonable factual inferences drawn by the Commission should also be given “substantial consideration and due deference” by this Court.
While I feel such deference is necessary for proper review of the Commission’s findings and conclusions, I have nevertheless reviewed the record under the standard of “independent review” now prescribed by the majority and am compelled to dissent.
From this new review of the record it is apparent that the previous erroneous opinion of the Court was properly ordered withdrawn. Further, the evidence sufficiently supports the findings of the Commission so that I now concur in the Commission’s conclusion that respondent’s guilt of judicial misconduct rises to a level warranting removal. In this connection I concur with the dissenting portion of the opinion of Welliv*860er, J., and I would order respondent’s removal from office as judge of the 37th Judicial Circuit.