Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Darby, 75 So. 3d 1037

The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a Formal Complaint against Tate County Youth Court Judge Leigh Ann Darby for violating Canons of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct actionable under Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A.
The Commission and Judge Darby filed an Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation admitting Canon violations and suggesting public reprimand, a $500 fine, and $100 costs, which the Commission adopted.
T.J., a fifteen-year-old, was placed on strict house arrest after an August 2009 detention hearing; later hearings discussed mental health and lack of medical insurance.
In June 2010, Judge Darby verbally directed actions concerning T.J.’s insurance and placement, including seeing a Parkwood evaluation, despite lack of written orders at the time.
Parkwood advised that CHIP would cover limited outpatient treatment and required guaranties; transportation and cost impeded participation, affecting the family.
A contempt hearing was held in July 2010 based on verbal directives; the mother was found in contempt without pleadings, written notice, time to prepare, or counsel, and was jailed briefly before release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Darby violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(2) and was actionable under 177A.	Darby abused contempt power by coercively sanctioning without due process.	Agreed facts show conduct violated Canons; sanctioning authority exercised improperly but within discretion.	Yes; violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(2) and actionable under 177A.
What sanction fits the offense: public reprimand, $500 fine, and $100 costs.	Sanction should reflect comparable abuse cases and Judge’s cooperation.	Mitigating factors support a principled, modest sanction.	Public reprimand, $500 fine, and $100 costs.

Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Sanford, 941 So.2d 209 (Miss. 2006) (mandated review framework for Commission recommendations)
Graves v. State, 66 So.3d 148 (Miss. 2011) (distinction between civil and criminal contempt; indirect contempt requires valid orders)
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. McGill, 890 So.2d 859 (Miss. 2004) (due-process safeguards for constructive contempt; involvement of citing judge)
In re Williamson, 569 So.2d 681 (Miss. 1990) (foundational due-process requirements for contempt)
Gunter, 797 So.2d 988 (Miss. 2001) (abuse of contempt powers; comparable sanctions)
Willard, 788 So.2d 736 (Miss. 2001) (sanctions for contempt abuses in judicial performance context)
Byers, 757 So.2d 961 (Miss. 2000) (public reprimand and costs in contempt-related misconduct)
Sanders, 749 So.2d 1062 (Miss. 1999) (contempt power abuses and judiciary disrepute)
Osborne, 16 So.3d 16 (Miss. 2009) (moral turpitude and misconduct in office considerations)
Bailey, 541 So.2d 1036 (Miss. 1989) (principled sanctions should fit the offense and be consistent with similar cases)
Gibson, 883 So.2d 1155 (Miss. 2004) (Gibson factors for sanctioning judiciary misconduct)
Boone, 60 So.3d 172 (Miss. 2011) (context for appellate review of sanctions in judicial performance)
Sanford, 941 So.2d 209 (Miss. 2006) (independent review of Commission recommendations)