83 A.3d 11
N.J.2014Background
- Kirkland brothers arrested Oct 4, 2009; charges downgraded to disorderly persons and referred to Linden Municipal Court on Feb 4, 2010.
- Judge DiLeo arraigned the defendants Apr 12, 2010; allowed them May 3, 2010 to secure counsel, stating private counsel meant waiver of public defender.
- On May 3, 2010, defendants appeared pro se; DiLeo said they waived the public defender and scheduled trial for May 11/12, 2010.
- Trial occurred May 12, 2010, with no defense counsel or municipal prosecutor present; judge conducted direct examination and questioned witnesses.
- Defendants were convicted and sentenced to jail terms and fines; Law Division later held trial and sentencing violated due process and proper procedure.
- Committee later presented that these egregious errors violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3A(1) and warranted discipline; Judge DiLeo was publicly reprimanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether egregious legal error can constitute misconduct | Committee standard is Benoit objective with plus | DiLeo argues no misconduct for mere legal error | Yes, when egregious/bad-faith pattern justify discipline |
| What standard governs review of legal error in discipline | Committee adopts reasonably prudent and competent judge with plus | DiLeo seeks a bad-faith/bias standard | Adopt Benoit with plus; threshold for discipline met only for egregious/errorful acts |
| Did the trial errors violate due process and right to counsel | Errors deprived right to counsel and impartial adjudication | No intentional misconduct shown; docket pressures justified timing | Yes; due process rights violated; misconduct established |
| retroactivity of the new standard for judicial discipline | Application of standard appropriate to case | Standard constitutes new rule retroactive to this case | Standard applied; Court adopting new standard for review |
| Disposition for judge’s misconduct | Reprimand appropriate to restore public confidence | Discipline should be limited; not removal | Public reprimand imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Benoit, 487 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1985) (adopts objective reasonable judge standard with plus for egregious error)
- In re Perskie, 207 N.J. 275 (N.J. 2011) (clear and convincing proof of violation and ethical misconduct test)
- In re Thomson, 100 N.J. 108 (N.J. 1985) (distinguishes mere error from misconduct; emphasis on public confidence)
- Alvino v. State, 100 N.J. 92 (N.J. 1985) (permissible range of discipline; standard for misconduct not mere error)
- In re Yengo, 72 N.J. 425 (N.J. 1977) (removal for abuse of judicial process; extreme misconduct)
- Boothe, 110 So.3d 1002 (La. 2013) (egregious or bad faith legal error justifies discipline; clear/determined law requirement)