Court Opinion

ID: 9697406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:15:55.207396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:32.259262
License: Public Domain

MAGARO, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I join in the Opinion of the Court in all respects except for that portion which finds that Respondents violated Article V, § 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, from which portion I dissent.
I dissent because, although the conduct of these Respondents is substantively identical to the conduct of the Respondent in In re Trkula, the latter was not charged with a violation of Article V, § 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution whereas these Respondents have been. I believe that the interests of justice and predictability are ill served if this Court cannot be relied upon to find that conduct by one Respondent constitutes the same constitutional and canonical violations as the same conduct by another. Nor do I believe that this Court’s responsibility in this regard should depend on what the Board decides to put in a Complaint in any given case. That is not to say that there is any indication that the Board, in bringing the charges against District Justices Joyce and Terrick, intended to treat them in a discriminatory fashion compared with District Justice Trkula. However, for the purpose of enlightening other judicial officers as to what conduct may support the imposition of sanctions and the basis therefor, this Court should be consistent.
SYLVESTER, J., joins in this Concurring and Dissenting Statement.