181 A.3d 750
Md.2018Background
- Judge Pamela J. White, a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge and former ADR supervising judge, presided over hearings in Joyner v. Veolia where she criticized plaintiff’s counsel (Rickey N. Jones), recused herself from parts of the case, and held counsel in contempt for failing to appear with the plaintiff.
- Jones filed complaints with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities (the Commission); Investigative Counsel investigated and the Inquiry Board issued a report recommending discipline. The Inquiry Board’s report was transmitted to the Commission in December 2015 but not promptly sent to Judge White.
- The Commission voted (December 2015) to find probable cause and directed Investigative Counsel to file public charges; Judge White only received the Inquiry Board report after that action and filed objections. The Commission reconsidered and again found probable cause, then filed public charges in March 2016.
- Before the evidentiary hearing, the Commission struck Judge White’s interrogatories and requests for admissions directed to Investigative Counsel on the ground that Investigative Counsel was not a “party,” though the Commission otherwise made the investigative file available.
- An evidentiary hearing was held; Investigative Counsel presented recordings/transcripts and complaints; Judge White presented witnesses but the Commission limited witness examination time. The Commission unanimously issued a public reprimand for unprofessional conduct and failure to recuse.
- Judge White sought a writ of mandamus in this Court alleging procedural due process violations (notice, disclosure of Inquiry Board report, discovery limitations, hearing fairness). The Court reviewed the full record and denied relief, holding procedural defects did not deprive her of a fundamentally fair proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | Commission's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timely notice of investigation and prompt transmission of Inquiry Board report | Delay in notifying her and in sending the Inquiry Board report prejudiced her ability to object before probable-cause determination | Rules permit limited delays for good cause and Commission reconsidered after receiving her objections | The late transmission violated Md. R. 18-404(j)(4) but was cured because the Commission allowed written objections and reconsidered probable cause; no due process deprivation found |
| Investigative Counsel’s communications and role (ex parte / investigator-prosecutor-adjudicator) | Investigative Counsel’s private communications with Inquiry Board/Commission prejudiced fairness and prevented effective rebuttal | Rules foresee ongoing communications; Commission may investigate and adjudicate; prior cases permit such structure | Communications alone did not violate due process; prior precedent permits combined investigatory/adjudicative roles where process remains fair (In re Diener, Withrow) |
| Discovery limitations (striking interrogatories/requests directed to Investigative Counsel) | Chair improperly struck discovery; Investigative Counsel functions like Bar Counsel and is a “party” for discovery; complete refusal prejudiced defense | Chair may limit discovery under Md. R. 18-407(g)(3); Investigative Counsel not a party so some discovery can be limited | Commission erred to the extent it held Investigative Counsel not a “party,” but because Investigative Counsel had provided open-file materials (recordings, transcripts, complaints) and the evidence used was disclosed, the error caused no prejudice and did not deny due process |
| Scope of evidentiary hearing and witness limits | Limiting witness examinations (10 minutes each) and excluding proffered mitigation evidence deprived her of a fair hearing | Testimony was largely mitigation; Commission has discretion to control relevance and time to preserve orderly hearing | Time limits and evidentiary rulings were within Commission’s discretion; excluded testimony was mitigation and not required for fairness; no due process violation |
| Whether sanction exceeded charged misconduct | Commission punished for uncharged conduct (invoking MCJC 1.2 based on May 5 hearing) | Charges expressly referenced conduct at May 5, Oct. 15, and Oct. 31 hearings and alleged MCJC violations | Judge White had notice that May 5 conduct was part of the charges; sanction did not exceed the charged misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of White, 451 Md. 630 (Md. 2017) (mandamus available to review due process defects in Commission proceedings)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (combining investigative and adjudicative functions in administrative bodies does not by itself violate due process)
- In re Diener, 268 Md. 659 (Md. 1973) (Commission’s investigatory and adjudicative roles do not automatically deny fair process)
- Sapero v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 398 Md. 317 (Md. 2007) (complete refusal of discovery in expedited condemnation proceedings can violate due process)
- Maryland State Police v. Zeigler, 330 Md. 540 (Md. 1993) (administrative bodies must observe basic rules of fairness; evidentiary rulings can violate due process in certain circumstances)