Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Dearman
2011 Miss. LEXIS 293
| Miss. | 2011Background
- The Commission filed formal complaints in 2009–2010 alleging willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by Judge Theresa Brown Dearman.
- The parties entered an Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation, which the Court considered as the record for review.
- Dearman admitted to multiple improprieties, including sua sponte bond reductions, conditioning bond reductions on church attendance, and altering bond terms after release or minimal proceedings.
- She also engaged in ex parte communications, invited public commentary about initial-appearance procedures, and presided over her nephew’s initial appearance.
- The Court approved the Commission’s recommendation of a public reprimand, a 30-day suspension without pay, and payment of $100 costs.
- The decision was delivered en banc with Justice Kitchens filing a separate dissent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dearman’s conduct violated Article 6, §177A and the Canons cited. | Commission: yes, willful misconduct and disrepute. | Dearman: actions were discretionary errors or fallible judgments. | Yes; conduct was willful and prejudicial, violating Article 6, §177A. |
| Whether the sanctions (public reprimand, 30-day suspension, costs) are appropriate under Gibson analysis. | Sanctions consistent with prior cases and appropriate for the pattern of misconduct. | Argues for lesser penalty or remand due to record limitations. | Sanctions approved and fit the offense. |
| Whether the ex parte communications and appearances involving a relative created appearance of impropriety requiring discipline. | Ex parte actions and appearance with relative harmed public confidence. | Some alleged acts were lawful or non-probative; no clear improper motive. | Pattern of conduct bearing on public trust; sanction appropriate. |
| Whether there was moral turpitude in Dearman’s conduct. | Not explicitly argued as moral turpitude. | No evidence of moral turpitude. | No moral turpitude found. |
| Whether mitigating or aggravating factors affected the sanction. | Agreed sanctions should be applied. | No explicit mitigating factors acknowledged. | No mitigating or aggravating factors found; sanctions upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Fowlkes, 967 So.2d 12 (Miss. 2007) (ex parte communications—sanctions appropriate when pattern exists)
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Vess, 10 So.3d 486 (Miss. 2009) (sanctions for misconduct including ex parte communications; appearance of impropriety considered)
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Britton, 936 So.2d 898 (Miss. 2006) (pattern of ex parte communications; public reprimand and suspension)
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Roberts, 952 So.2d 934 (Miss. 2007) (abuse of process; court-ordered sanctions fit misconduct)
- Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Cole, 932 So.2d 9 (Miss. 2006) (appearance of impropriety by presiding over relative’s matter; recusal issues)