Alred v. Commonwealth, Judicial Conduct Commission, 395 S.W.3d 417

Judge Aired faced a Judicial Conduct Commission investigation charging twenty counts of misconduct; the Commission found nine counts supported by clear and convincing evidence and ordered removal; Aired appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court seeking reversal on multiple due-process and constitutional grounds; the Court affirmed eight counts and reversed Count V as clearly erroneous; the Court held SCR 4.020 and Canons 1 and 2A are not vague and did not violate due process; the Court rejected Sixth Amendment and SCR 4.170 challenges and reviewed the eight affirmed counts for support by the record; the concurrence and dissents offered varying views on remedy and scope of discipline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SCR 4.020 and Canons 1 and 2A are constitutionally vague.	Aired argued the standards are vague.	The Commission argued the canons provide sufficient guidance.	Not unconstitutional or vague.
Whether Sixth Amendment rights apply to judicial disciplinary proceedings.	Aired claimed Sixth Amendment protections apply.	Disciplinary proceedings are not criminal; protections do not apply.	Sixth Amendment does not apply.
Whether the Commission members should have disqualified themselves.	Aired sought disqualification due to potential bias.	No disqualification required under Canon 3E and related standards.	No clear error in refusal to recuse.
Whether SCR 4.170(4) rights were violated by not disclosing complainants’ identities.	Aired sought naming of complainants and exculpatory information.	Judge was provided the information and proceedings were administrative, not criminal.	SCR 4.170 not violated; sufficient information provided.
Whether Count V’s findings were clearly erroneous; eight counts should stand.	Aired contended Count V lacked sufficient evidence.	The Commission’s findings were supported by the record.	Count V clearly erroneous; eight counts affirmed.

Nicholson v. Judicial Retirement and Removal Comm’n, 562 S.W.2d 306 (Ky. 1978) (for good cause standard provides definite notice to judges)
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (investigative and adjudicative functions; due process limits require bias showing)
Caperton v. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (recusal and due process concerns in adjudicative contexts)
Ice v. Commonwealth, 667 S.W.2d 671 (Ky. 1984) (ex parte information in criminal context; distinguish from admin proceedings)
Judicial Inquiry and Review Comm’n v. Taylor, 278 Va. 699, 685 S.E.2d 51 (Va. 2009) (canons not vague when read with commentary; public confidence standard)
Gormley v. Judicial Conduct Comm’n, 332 S.W.3d 717 (Ky. 2010) (recusal and bias standards; disciplinary process)
Petzold v. Commonwealth, 303 S.W.3d 467 (Ky. 2010) (discipline context; ethics opinions and recusal guidance)
Stopher v. Commonwealth, 57 S.W.3d 787 (Ky. 2001) (recusal and impartiality standards)
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 673 S.W.2d 426 (Ky. 1984) (recusal and due process considerations)