2010 Pa. Jud. Disc. LEXIS 4
Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa2010Background
- Former Magisterial District Judge David J. Murphy served Delaware County 32-2-38 from 1992 to 2009.
- In 2009 Murphy faced a criminal investigation for alleged forgery of nomination petitions during his re-election campaign.
- Murphy went on paid administrative leave, was re-elected, and took a new oath of office in January 2010.
- Murphy remained on paid leave until March 29, 2010, when he went on unpaid leave after arraignment on multiple charges.
- On March 31, 2010 Murphy retired from the office of Magisterial District Judge.
- On July 21, 2010 he pled guilty to multiple counts including Forgery, Identity Theft, Perjury, False Signatures in Nomination Petitions, and Criminal Conspiracy, and was sentenced to four years of probation and 200 hours of community service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murphy’s conduct brought the judicial office into disrepute. | Board contends the forged signatures and false statements undermine public trust. | Murphy admits the allegations; argues the issue is whether this conduct meets the disrepute standard. | Yes; conduct was so extreme it brings the judicial office into disrepute. |
| Whether Murphy’s conduct violated Article V, § 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. | Board asserts a violation of § 17(b) based on activity prohibited by law. | Murphy argues § 17(b) does not apply to district judges in the same way as other judges; language does not cover illegal activity. | No automatic § 17(b) violation; not applicable to Murphy’s conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Smith, 687 A.2d 1229 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1997) (establishes that disrepute requires case-by-case analysis and public expectations)
- In re Cicchetti, 560 Pa. 183, 743 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2000) (conduct must be weighed against public expectations on a case-by-case basis)
- In re Berkhimer, 593 Pa. 366, 930 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2007) (adopts consistent standard for disrepute análise)
- In re Harrington, 587 Pa. 407, 899 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2006) (distinguishes § 17(b) applicability to different offices)
- In re Berry, 979 A.2d 991 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2009) (disrepute standard should be reserved for the most extreme misconduct)