195 So. 3d 460
La.2016Background
- Judge James J. Best (Eighteenth Judicial District) handled Antonio Garcia’s motion to terminate five‑year supervised probation following a guilty plea for indecent behavior with a juvenile. Garcia filed the motion pro se; the Attorney General (prosecuting agency) was not notified.
- Judge Best had a social/church acquaintance with Garcia (choir involvement) and referred Garcia to a friend‑attorney. He engaged in ex parte communications with the probation officer, the District Attorney, and the local police about the motion.
- A hearing was held January 6, 2012 without the Attorney General present; the assistant DA stayed but did not participate. Best made on‑the‑bench comments about his out‑of‑court observations of Garcia and then terminated Garcia’s probation. The order was later set aside after media attention and AG intervention.
- The Judiciary Commission charged Best with violations of multiple Canons (1, 2(A), 2(B), 3(A)(1), 3(A)(4), 3(A)(6)) and La. Const. art. V, § 25(C). Best largely admitted facts and stipulated to Code violations but denied actual bias.
- The Commission found no actual bias but that Best’s words/conduct created an appearance of bias and amounted to willful misconduct; it recommended a 30‑day suspension. The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo, found Code violations, and imposed a 15‑day suspension without pay plus costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Best act with actual bias or prejudice in Garcia’s case? | Commission/OSC argued Best’s social ties, ex parte contacts, and bench remarks showed bias; discipline warranted. | Best admitted appearance of bias but denied actual bias; characterized relationship as casual acquaintance and denied favoritism. | Court: No clear and convincing evidence of actual bias; conduct created an appearance of bias (Canon 3(A)(4)). |
| Did Best’s ex parte communications and actions violate the Code of Judicial Conduct? | Commission: Ex parte contacts with probation officer, DA, and police designed to influence judicial action violated Canon 3(A)(6) and others. | Best said such contacts were routine in his district and denied awareness of the precise ethical boundary once a motion was filed. | Court: Violations established—Best should have refrained from ex parte communications once motion filed; violated multiple Canons. |
| Was it proper to proceed with the hearing without the proper prosecuting authority present? | Commission: Proceeding without the Attorney General (who had not been notified) violated La. C. Cr. P. art. 822 and undermined impartiality. | Best explained customary practice in his court and reliance on probation officer testimony; acknowledged error in proceeding. | Court: Proceeding was improper; Best should not have held the hearing without the Attorney General present (violated Canon 3(A)(1) and statutory contradictory‑hearing rules). |
| What discipline is appropriate? | Commission recommended 30‑day suspension (relied in part on Best’s prior public censure and admonishments). | Best sought public censure only, emphasized self‑reporting, cooperation, remediation, and lack of exploitation of office. | Court: Considering factors (Chaisson), imposed 15‑day suspension without pay and ordered reimbursement of $1,610.71 costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Quirk, 705 So.2d 172 (La. 1997) (court reviews judicial discipline de novo and is not bound by Commission findings)
- In re Chaisson, 549 So.2d 259 (La. 1989) (non‑exclusive factors for imposing judicial discipline)
- In re Marullo, 692 So.2d 1019 (La. 1997) (primary purpose of judicial discipline is protection of the public)
- In re Free, 158 So.3d 771 (La. 2014) (suspension for prohibited ex parte communications)
- In re Cresap, 940 So.2d 624 (La. 2006) (thirty‑day suspension for prohibited ex parte communications)
- In re Best, 719 So.2d 432 (La. 1998) (prior public censure of Judge Best for unrelated misconduct)