In re Jennings, 192 A.3d 372

Background

Magisterial District Judge Robert Jennings was accused of forcing constables who served his court to contribute 10% of their earnings to his reelection fund; the Judicial Conduct Board filed a Complaint on Nov. 14, 2014.
Jennings was suspended with pay (Nov. 17, 2014), later suspended without pay (July 29, 2015), and subsequently resigned his commission; parallel criminal charges were filed by the Attorney General on Sept. 18, 2015.
On Sept. 11, 2017, Jennings pleaded nolo contendere to criminal coercion (18 Pa.C.S. § 2906(a)(4)) and demanding property to secure employment (18 Pa.C.S. § 7322); he received consecutive one-year probations and restitution.
Parties filed Joint Stipulations of Fact in lieu of trial adopting the plea and sentencing records; Stipulation No. 14 expressly connected the plea to conditioning constable assignments on campaign contributions.
The Court evaluated whether the nolo contendere conviction and stipulations sufficed to support disciplinary findings for violations of the old judicial conduct rules and constitutional provisions (Old Rule 2; Old Rule 12; Article V, §§ 17(b) and 18(d)(1)).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a nolo contendere plea/conviction may support disciplinary action	The conviction itself is an operative fact authorizing discipline; plea colloquy and stipulations supply underlying conduct	Nolo contendere is not an admission of guilt and cannot be used as an admission beyond the criminal case	Court held the conviction and stipulations were sufficient; nolo plea is a conviction for sentencing and can support discipline (Eisenberg rationale)
Whether the criminal conduct was connected to judicial duties	The criminal coercion statute element (withholding official action) and stipulation tie the misconduct to Jennings' official discretion over constable assignments	Jennings argued limits of using plea facts, but stipulated conviction and statutory elements show official-action nexus	Court found the coercion conviction necessarily involved official (judicial) action, so conduct was tied to judicial duties
Whether Jennings violated Old Rule 2 and Old Rule 12 (respect law; avoid incompatible practices)	Convictions for criminal coercion and demanding property are per se breaches of legal and ethical duties expected of judges	Jennings argued nolo plea limits the use of factual admissions, but stipulations and statute elements suffice	Court held Jennings violated Old Rule 2 and Old Rule 12 as criminal acts are inconsistent with judicial obligations
Whether Jennings' conduct brought the judicial office into disrepute (Art. V, §18(d)(1))	Extorting constables for campaign money, using judicial discretion for personal gain, is extreme corruption that damages the judiciary's reputation	Possible argument that misconduct affected only Jennings, not the judiciary as a whole	Court held the extortionate misuse of judicial office was severe enough to bring the judiciary into disrepute; constitutional violation found

Key Cases Cited

Eisenberg v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 512 Pa. 181, 516 A.2d 333 (Pa. 1986) (nolo contendere conviction can be the operative fact supporting administrative discipline)
In re Roca, 151 A.3d 739 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) (judicial corruption intolerable)
In re Segal, 151 A.3d 734 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2016) (corrupt acts prejudice administration of justice)
In re Carney, 28 A.3d 253 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2011) (conduct must be extreme to bring judicial office into disrepute)
Commonwealth v. Moser, 999 A.2d 602 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (nolo contendere treated as conviction for sentencing and legal consequences)
In re Berry, 979 A.2d 991 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2009) (misdemeanor convictions considered in discipline and disrepute findings)
In re Pazuhanich, 858 A.2d 231 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2004) (same)
In re Eagen, 814 A.2d 304 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2002) (same)
In re Chesna, 659 A.2d 1091 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 1995) (same)