155 A.3d 463
Md.2017Background
- Judge Pamela J. White presided over hearings in Joyner v. Veolia (Baltimore City Circuit Court) in 2014; her conduct during several hearings (yelling, calling counsel’s assertions “bullshit,” and presiding over a show-cause hearing after recusal from the trial) led to complaints by counsel Rickey Nelson Jones.
- The Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities investigated, filed charges, held an evidentiary hearing (July 7–8, 2016), and issued Findings and a public reprimand (Aug. 3, 2016) for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct (impartiality/disqualification, promoting confidence in the judiciary).
- Judge White filed with the Court of Appeals an "Appeal and, in the Alternative, Petition for Writ of Certiorari," asserting (1) she was denied procedural due process in the Commission proceedings and (2) the Commission erred on the merits in finding sanctionable conduct.
- The Commission moved to dismiss, arguing there is no right of appellate review of a Commission-issued reprimand; the Court limited briefing and framed two questions about jurisdiction and procedural-compliance, and heard oral argument Nov. 4, 2016.
- The Court held there is no constitutional or statutory appellate route to review a Commission reprimand, but the Court can consider due-process claims by an accused judge via an original common law writ of mandamus; the Court directed the Commission to file its record so the mandamus review can proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Appeals has appellate or certiorari jurisdiction to review a Commission public reprimand | White: she has right to appellate review/certiorari to challenge fairness and merits | Commission: no statutory or constitutional grant permits appeal or certiorari of a reprimand | No appellate or certiorari jurisdiction exists for Commission-issued reprimands; statutes (CJ §12-201) do not cover this situation |
| Whether Court can provide any review of procedural due process claims when Commission issues reprimand | White: Court should review Commission fairness and alleged procedural defects | Commission: reprimand is final Commission action not subject to Court review; confidentiality concerns limit response | Court may review procedural due-process claims via an original common law writ of mandamus; confidentiality issues require waivers for pre-charge materials |
| Scope of mandamus review — can Court review merits of reprimand or only procedural fairness? | White: seeks review of both due process and merits of sanction | Commission: discretionary judgment to reprimand is non-ministerial and not subject to mandamus review | Mandamus limited to procedural/fundamental fairness claims; Court will not substitute its judgment for Commission’s discretionary decision to reprimand |
| What record must be filed and confidentiality limitations | White: wants full record to show rule deviations (including pre-charging materials) | Commission: pre-charging materials are confidential; hesitant to disclose without waiver | Court directed Commission to file its proceedings record; White must execute written waiver for any pre-charge confidential materials she relies on |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisriel v. Ocean City Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 345 Md. 477 (1997) (appellate jurisdiction exists only where statute grants it; courts may treat filings by substance as mandamus)
- In re Diener, 268 Md. 659 (1973) (Court reviewed Commission-recommended censure and considered due process constraints on Commission procedures)
- Goodwich v. Nolan, 343 Md. 130 (1996) (mandamus is an original, extraordinary remedy to compel performance of imperative duties)
- Hecht v. Crook, 184 Md. 271 (1945) (courts may use mandamus to correct abuses of discretion but must avoid interfering with lawful administrative discretion)
- Talbot County v. Miles Point Prop., LLC, 415 Md. 372 (2010) (recognition of administrative mandamus principles for judicial review when statutory review is unavailable)