In re Slaughter, 2015 WL 7738447

Background

Judge Michelle Slaughter maintained a public Facebook page identifying her as judge and posted about pending trials in her 405th District Court, including a high-profile criminal matter dubbed the “Boy in a Box.”
During the trial Slaughter posted several public comments (announcing jury selection, referring to the case by its media nickname, linking a Reuters story) while also admonishing jurors not to use social media or consume media about the case.
Defense counsel moved to recuse Slaughter based on her Facebook activity; a visiting judge granted recusal and a mistrial followed; the defendant was later acquitted at retrial.
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a Public Admonition and Order of Additional Education alleging violations of Canons 3(B)(10) and 4(A) and Article V, §1-a(6)(A) of the Texas Constitution (Charges I–III).
Slaughter appealed to a Special Court of Review; after a trial de novo the Court concluded the Commission failed to prove willful or persistent misconduct and dismissed all charges.

Issues

Issue	Commission's Argument	Slaughter's Argument	Held
Charge I: Did Slaughter’s Facebook posts about pending cases violate Canon 3(B)(10) or Canon 4(A)?	Posts suggested probable decision / cast doubt on impartiality; used judicial trappings to boost message.	Posts were informational, part of transparency, not suggestive of a probable ruling; experts supported permissibility.	Not guilty — posts did not suggest probable decision nor show willful/grossly indifferent misuse of office.
Charge II: Did the posts interfere with judicial duties because they led to recusal and mistrial (Canon 4(A))?	Recusal and mistrial resulted directly from her posts, thus interference with duties.	Recusal is a separate administrative decision; no evidence of bias or willful misconduct by judge.	Not guilty — recusal alone, without further evidence of bias or ethical violation, insufficient to prove Canon 4(A) breach.
Charge III: Did posting a media link (after admonishing jurors) and removing a third‑party comment violate duty to maintain public confidence?	Posting link contradicted admonition to jurors and may have exposed extraneous information; third‑party comments reflected on judge.	No evidence the article contained new extraneous facts or that jurors were exposed; third‑party comment was unsolicited and removed.	Not guilty — no use of extraneous evidence, jury not exposed, and removal of unsolicited comment not a violation.
First Amendment challenge (as pleaded in defense): Does the Code abridge judge’s speech?	(Commission assumed Code applies to judge's extrajudicial speech affecting duties.)	If Code were violated, judge argued restriction would raise First Amendment issues.	Court did not reach constitutional question because it found no Code violation.

Key Cases Cited

In re Hecht, 213 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev.) (special court trial‑de‑novo procedures and burden of proof)
In re Canales, 113 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. Rev. Trib.) (standard for Commission proceedings)
In re Davis, 82 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev.) (willful misconduct standard)
In re Sharp, 480 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev.) (willful/grossly indifferent misuse of office)
Youkers v. State, 400 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App.—Dallas) (judges may use social media but must heed ethical duties)
Powell v. State, 898 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial judge’s exposure to media and admonitions to jury)
Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. Crim. App.) (judge as gatekeeper of evidence)
Gaal v. State, 332 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. Crim. App.) (ethical violations alone do not automatically require recusal)