464 Md. 390
Md.2019Background
- Judge Devy Patterson Russell, District Court judge in Baltimore City (appointed 2006; reappointed 2016), was charged by the Commission on Judicial Disabilities after an investigation into conduct from 2007–2017. A public hearing followed; the Commission found sanctionable conduct and recommended a six-month unpaid suspension plus remedial conditions. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and exceptions.
- Core factual findings: Judge Russell stored numerous executed search-warrant materials unsecured in ‘‘nomad boxes’’ (found in a public law-clerks’ area) and failed to timely match/file many executed warrants (Commission identified ~135 warrants from 2007–2015). She instructed a law clerk to “get rid of” the materials, which the clerk interpreted as a direction to destroy them.
- Interpersonal findings: Repeated episodes of public yelling, demeaning treatment of clerks, ordering clerk ‘‘lineups’’ over errors, at least one instance of physically pushing a clerk, interruptions of other judges’ proceedings, and attempts to undermine administrative judges; many incidents were witnessed by judges, staff, or members of the public.
- Procedural posture: Judge Russell’s motions to recuse and to suppress were denied by the Commission; she filed exceptions to the Commission’s findings; the Court conducted an independent review to determine whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported violations of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct and what sanction to impose.
- Holdings: The Court sustained most Commission findings: violations of Md. Rules 18-101.1, 18-101.2, 18-102.5, 18-102.8, and 18-102.12 (competence/diligence, decorum, supervisory duties, promoting confidence). One internal-policy finding (regarding signing warrants at the Civil Courthouse) was rejected. The Court imposed a suspension of no less than six consecutive months without pay, starting July 1, 2019, conditioned on a behavioral/health evaluation, cooperation with treatment, completion of judicial-ethics training, and satisfactory reports before reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Russell’s Argument | Commission / State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of Commission member (Judge Hazlett) | Hazlett should recuse because Chief Judge Morrissey (a witness) is her superior; impartiality might be questioned | No disqualifying personal ties; rule of necessity; Hazlett’s duty includes reviewing fellow judges | Motion to recuse properly denied; no abuse of discretion in refusing recusal |
| Suppression of warrant boxes | Boxes were seized from courthouse; search/seizure protections require suppression | Boxes were stored unsecured in a public law-clerks’ office; no reasonable expectation of privacy; exclusionary rule not applicable to Commission proceedings | Motion to suppress was properly denied |
| Timeliness / preclusion defenses (statute of limitations, laches, separation of powers, estoppel, res judicata, fundamental fairness) | Much conduct predated 2016 reappointment; defenses and fairness require dismissal | Commission empowered to discipline sanctionable conduct irrespective of reappointment knowledge; no prior final adjudication | Defenses rejected; disciplinary authority may reach past conduct while judge remains in office |
| Substance: mishandling/destroying warrants & supervisory misuse | Nomad boxes were non-processable; clerk misinterpreted instructions; destruction permitted for unexecuted warrants | Executed warrants were retained unfiled, secured improperly; direction to destroy executed warrants would be misuse of clerk and removal of evidence; violates Md. Rule 4-601 and judicial conduct rules | Court adopted Commission’s findings (except one internal-policy finding). Judge violated duties re: competence/diligence (18-102.5), compliance (18-101.1), and supervisory duties (18-102.12) |
| Substance: interpersonal misconduct (yelling, public humiliation, physical push, undermining supervisors) | Actions were problem-solving, ‘‘lively discussion,’’ personality conflicts; not sanctionable | Pattern of discourtesy, incivility, public outbursts undermined court functioning and confidence | Court sustained Commission: conduct violated rules governing decorum, cooperation, and promoting confidence (18-102.8, 18-102.5(b), 18-101.2) and is sanctionable |
| Appropriate sanction | Russell denied sanctionable conduct; argued against severe discipline | Commission recommended immediate six-month unpaid suspension plus remedial conditions due to pervasive effects | Court independently assessed and imposed no less than six months suspension without pay, with reinstatement contingent on health evaluation/cooperation, ethics training, and satisfactory reports |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson-El v. State, 330 Md. 99 (1993) (standard for recusal; reasonable-person test and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Walker v. State, 432 Md. 587 (2013) (public employee’s privacy expectations may be limited by office practices; application to workplace storage)
- In re Turney, 311 Md. 246 (1988) (recusal required when judge has personal connections creating appearance of partiality)
- In re Lamdin, 404 Md. 631 (2008) (pattern of discourteous judicial behavior can be sanctionable; suspension precedent)
- In re Diener & Broccolino, 268 Md. 659 (1973) (Court’s duty to review Commission findings and impose discipline if warranted)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Woolery, 462 Md. 209 (2019) (trial-like factfinding; Commission credibility determinations entitled to substantial weight)