Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Dearman
2011 Miss. LEXIS 532
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Commission charged Judge Dearman with misconduct for a November 5, 2010 call to a Florida judge in a pending matter involving a friend/family of Dearman, alleging violations of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, and 3B(2) and potential willful misconduct under Mississippi Constitution §177A.
- Agreed statement of facts clarified Dearman’s relationship to the defendant’s family (not the defendant) and that she did not speak directly with Judge Nobles; bond hearing had already occurred.
- Dearman admitted to the misconduct and to the sanctions; the Commission and Dearman moved the Court to adopt the agreed facts and proposed discipline.
- Mississippi Supreme Court conducted an independent review of the record, with authority to accept, reject, or modify the Commission’s findings and recommendations.
- Court applied the Gibson factors to determine sanction, considering public service, precedent, offense magnitude, pattern of conduct, moral turpitude, and mitigating/aggravating circumstances.
- Court imposed a thirty-day suspension without pay, a public reprimand, and costs of $100, noting Dearman’s prior discipline in Dearman I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dearman’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, and 3B(2) and violated §177A. | Dearman violated Canons and §177A by using her influence through a call. | Dearman acknowledged conduct; it was sanctionable under §177A but subject to commission-recommended discipline. | Yes, violations found and sanctionable under §177A. |
| Whether the sanction imposed is appropriate under the Gibson factors. | Severity warranted given pattern of misconduct and impact on public confidence. | Agreed sanctions should be affirmed; only minimal discipline previously. | Suspension without pay for 30 days, public reprimand, and $100 costs appropriate. |
| Whether the misconduct constitutes moral turpitude. | Conduct involved improper influence and could be viewed as moral turpitude. | No moral turpitude found; conduct akin to prior Thompson case. | No moral turpitude found. |
| Whether the Court can impose harsher sanctions than Commission recommended given Dearman I. | Dearman II requires adherence to Commission’s recommendations. | Court may modify sanctions based on record and Gibson factors. | Court imposed harsher sanction in light of Dearman I. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Brown, 761 So. 2d 182 (Miss. 2000) (public reprimand and fines for related misconduct)
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Cole, 932 So. 2d 9 (Miss. 2006) (public reprimand; first infraction; cooperation with Commission)
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Thompson, 972 So. 2d 582 (Miss. 2008) (public reprimand; no moral turpitude; prior action considerations)
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Brown, 918 So. 2d 1247 (Miss. 2005) (interference in a case; discussed multiple factors including harm and misconduct)
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Dearman (Dearman I), 66 So. 3d 112 (Miss. 2011) (earlier sanction; cited in evaluating pattern of misconduct)