Court Opinion

ID: 9555266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 14:11:34.056659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:06.942074
License: Public Domain

BEFORE THE NEBRASKA COMMISSION ON                                           FEhffiM
                      JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS                                                 Jt N 23 2023

                                                         S - L3- al W "W*?'fffi[scouRr
                                                                                        *

In the matter of                        )                JQC: 2023-023
MICIIAEL P. BURNS,                      )
County Judge of the Tenth Judicial )                 PUBLIC REPRIMAND
District of Nebraska.              )

        Pursuant to the authority granted in Article V of the Nebraska Constitution
and Neb. Rev. Stat. S 24-7L5 et. seq., and following waiver of formal hearing, the
Nebraska Commission on Judicial Qualifigslions (JQC) hereby issues this Public
Reprimand of Judge Michael P. Burns. Its publication is intended to address the
specific conduct of the subject judge and to instruct the judiciary concerning similar
circumstances. The JQC finds and concludes as follows:
        1. Judge Michael P. Burns was and is a duly appointed judge of the County
Court for the Tenth Judicial District of Nebraska.
        2. On March 16,2023, during a noon break from his judicial duties, Judge
Burns received a message from a County Clerk Magistrate that a charge had been
filed against a person whose name the Clerk Magistrate recognized as Judge Burns'
friend and parish priest.
        3. Although the matter had not yet been assigned to any judge, Judge Burns'
relationship with the defendant was such that he would have been disqualified from
hearing it.
        4. The charge was a misdemeanor offense related to driving a\ilay from a local
convenience store without paying for gas. In the normal course of her duties, the
Clerk Magistrate would process the frIing and pursuant to it, a citation would be
issued to the defendant with a court appearance date.
        5. Judge Burns felt certain the defendant had not intentionally committed
the offense. He instructed the Clerk Magistrate to hold offprocessing the charge so
he could look into the circumstances.
        6. Judge Burns then initiated a phone call to the County Attorney who had
fiIed the charge, in which he explained his relationship with the defendant and his
belief that there must be a mistake. He asked if further investigation might be
warranted before proceeding, and provided the defendant's phone mrmber to pass
along to law enforcement.
        7. Next, Judge Burns contacted the defendant, notifting him of the charge
and encouragrng him to follow up with law enforcement to resolve the legal matter.

                                            1

                                                               rffi ilillilllililllllllilffi lllillffi lililllillillillil
                                                                              @00103414NSC
       8. Judge Burns reported his own conduct to the JQC the same day. He
disclosed his conduct to colleagues and encouraged them to cooperate with the JQC.
       9. Although Judge Burns reassured the Clerk Magistrate that her own
inquiry to him was correct, his response to her inquiry was not. He failed to instruct
her that he had a conflisl of interest and could not take any action. He should have
 declined to take any action.
         10. Although Judge Burns intended to defer to the County Attorney's
judgment, his initiation and continuation of communication with the prosecutor
were improper.
         11. Although Judge Burns reasoned he was helping his parish priest avoid.
the public embarrassment of an unjust minor criminal charge, he was only able to
 do so by virtue of his judicial position, using knowledge and contacts afforded to him
as a judge.
         12. Judge Burns engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice that brings the judicial offi.ce into disrepute pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat .S 24-
722, in violation of the following provisions of the Nebraska Code of Judicial
Conduct:
                S 5-301.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary. A judge shall act at
        all times in a manner that promotes public confi.dence in the independence,
        integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and
        the appearance of impropriety.

             S 5-301.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial ofEce. A judge
      shall not abuse the prestige ofjudicial offrce to advance the personal or
      economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

             S 5-302.1 Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Offrce. The duties
      of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over aII of a
      judge's personal and extrajudicial activities.

             S 5-302.12 supervisory Duties. (A) A judge shall require court staff,
      court offrcials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to act in
      a manner consistent with the judge's obligations under this Code.

      13. Moreover, Judge Burns'misconduct set forth the above-created confusion
and concern among his colleagues about his authority and their own obligations,
and left incorrect impressions about the processing of the underlying criminal
matter. These are reasonable and expected reactions to Judge Burns'misconduct,
no matter how well-intentioned and no matter his personal confidence in the

                                          -2-
defendant's innocence. A judge cannot underestimate the position in which he
places others who are subject to his authority or control, and if the judge has a
reputation for integrity, his colleagues are even more likely to assume such conduct
must be permissible.
       14. Judge Burns'several communications occurred on the same day and as
part of a single event. He has no history of prior discipline. He has expressed
embarrassment and remorse and has acknowledged the consequences, albeit
unintended, of this misconduct. Judge Burns also took the important step of
immediately reporting his own conduct, and he fully cooperated with the JQC and
encouraged all others to do so, thereby justifying discipline no more severe than this
Reprimand.

      Dated thisQSf.&aay of June, 2023.

                                 COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS

                                 By:
                                       Michael G. Heavican, Chief Justice
                                       Commission Chair

                                          3