In The Matter of: Jaymie Godwin Wilfong, Judge
765 S.E.2d 283
W. Va.2014Background
- Judge Jaymie G. Wilfong (Randolph County circuit judge, term ending Dec. 31, 2016) had a multi-year extramarital sexual relationship (2011–2013) with William Travis Carter, director of the county’s North Central Community Corrections (NCCC) program.
- Carter and NCCC staff appeared in Wilfong’s courtroom repeatedly (at least 46 matters) to recommend alternative sentencing or testify; Wilfong never disclosed the intimate relationship to parties or on the record.
- Wilfong conducted sexual encounters in her judicial chambers during court hours, told select court staff and local lawyers about the relationship and enlisted them to conceal or facilitate meetings; she participated in NCCC board decisions affecting Carter (budgets, salary, vehicle request) while a non‑voting member.
- Multiple complaints followed; the Judicial Investigation Commission charged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a Judicial Hearing Board found 11 violations of 7 Canons and recommended censure, a three‑year suspension, a $20,000 fine, and costs.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court reviewed the Hearing Board’s findings de novo, adopted the 11 violations, censured Wilfong, suspended her without pay until the end of her term (Dec. 31, 2016), and ordered her to pay the investigation/prosecution costs but eliminated the fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports violations beyond Wilfong’s admitted Canons | Special counsel: evidence (stipulations, testimony, conduct in chambers, nondisclosure, involvement of staff/attorneys, repeated appearances by Carter/NCCC) establishes 11 violations of 7 Canons | Wilfong: she admitted only three Canons; insufficient proof for remaining alleged violations; investigation/prosecution was biased | Court: accepted stipulations and Hearing Board findings; clear and convincing evidence supported all 11 violations of seven Canons |
| Whether extrajudicial sexual relationship created an articulable nexus to judicial duties (i.e., actionable under the Canons) | Special counsel: relationship involved a person and staff who regularly appeared before the judge and affected administration of justice; conduct occurred in chambers during court hours | Wilfong: initially argued private matter / seduction; later conceded impropriety but contested some findings | Court: found an articulable nexus — extrajudicial conduct demeaned the office, impaired integrity, and affected administration of justice; violations of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3C(1), 3C(2), 3E(1), 4A established |
| Appropriate disciplinary sanction (severity; fine, suspension length, costs) | Hearing Board: censure, 3‑year suspension, $20,000 fine, costs (mitigating and aggravating factors weighed) | Wilfong: requested reprimand or short suspension (60 days) | Court: imposed censure; suspended Wilfong without pay until end of her term (Dec. 31, 2016); ordered payment of investigative/prosecution costs; eliminated the fine (modifying the Hearing Board recommendation) |
| Disqualification and interim administrative consequences (replacement judges and public expense) | Prosecuting attorney and others: Judge’s impartiality reasonably questioned; requested disqualification and special judges | Wilfong: initially resisted disqualification, argued minimal impact and delay in complaints shows lack of impropriety | Court: Chief Justice correctly disqualified Wilfong from prosecutor’s cases; Court recognized resulting public expense and considered it an aggravating factor in sanctioning (but still removed the fine) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Watkins, 233 W.Va. 170, 757 S.E.2d 594 (W. Va. 2013) (standards for judicial discipline and available sanctions)
- In re Toler, 218 W.Va. 653, 625 S.E.2d 731 (W. Va. 2005) (multiple sanctions may be imposed consecutively for separate Code violations)
- Matter of Starcher, 202 W.Va. 55, 501 S.E.2d 772 (W. Va. 1998) (stipulated facts in disciplinary proceedings treated as proven by clear and convincing evidence)
- W.Va. Judicial Inquiry Comm’n v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 233, 271 S.E.2d 427 (W. Va. 1980) (appellate review standard for Hearing Board findings)
- In re Cruickshanks, 220 W.Va. 513, 648 S.E.2d 19 (W. Va. 2007) (factors to consider when imposing suspension)
- In re Gerard, 631 N.W.2d 271 (Iowa 2001) (discipline where a judge had a secret intimate relationship with an attorney who appeared before the judge)
- In re LaMotte, 341 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1977) (purpose of judicial discipline is to preserve public confidence and deter misconduct)