*1 LOKUTA, Judge In re Ann H. Pleas,
Cоurt of Eleventh Common County. District, Judicial Luzerne No. 3 JD 06. Discipline Court of Judicial of Pennsylvania. 30,
Oct. 2008. Order Dec. *9 503,
That, pursuant C.J.D.R.P. No. Findings Fact Opinion the attached of with filed, hereby and of Law is Conclusions and upon shall be served the Judicial Con- upon duct Board the Respondent, and party may That either elect to file writ- objections findings ten to the and conclu- Court, of ba- stating sions the therein the objections, provided sis those that such shall be filed objections with the Court (10) days ten of date within Order, entry copy of this and a thereof upon opposing served party, That, in the objections event such filed, are the Court shall determine wheth- argument er to entertain oral upon the and, so, if objections, issue an Order set- ting a argument. date for such oral If the Court determines not to ar- entertain oral upon gument objections, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law shall be- come final and this Court will conduct hearing sanctions, issue of That, objections in the event are above, filed within the time set forth Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law final, shall become and this is- Court will date, an setting pursuant sue Order 504, hearing C.J.D.R.P. No. for a on the issue of sanctions. Puskas, II, Harrisburg,
Francis J. Dep- I. INTRODUCTION uty Counsel, Board, Chief Judicial Conduct (Board) The Judicial Conduct Board for Judicial Conduct Board. Complaint filed a this Court on No- 27, Sinatra, against Lokuta, vember H.
Louis J. Ann Philadelphia, for Re- spondent. Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania
Luzerne County (Respon- MUSMANNO, P.J., LAMB, dent) Before and consisting charge of six counts which SPRAGUE, P.J.E., O’TOOLE, Respondent as follows: STREIB, BUCCI, KURTZ, JJ. Failing patient, dignified to be jurors, witnesses, litigants, courteous to
OPINION BY SPRAGUE. lawyers, and others with whom she deals NOW, October, day AND 30th capacity, in her official to re- failing upon based the Opinion quire filed here- similar conduct lawyers and of with, staff, hereby officials, it is ORDERED: subject court and others
998 control, testimony testimony disputing a the lengthy her direction and violation of witnesses, 3A.(3) declaring that of the of the of Judicial Con- Board’s Canon Code lying, giving are all (Count 1), the Board’s witnesses duct committing perjury, and testimony, false brings judicial 2. Conduct which the a to hurt Re- conspiracy furtherance of disrepute, into a of Article office violation spondent. question Our resolution of this V, 18(d)(1) Pennsylvania § the of Constitu- essential to the fact obviously will be find- (Count 2), tion and will dictate our ing process in this case dispose of the Failing promptly 3. to the ultimate conclusions. We find court, of the a of Canon business violation credible, did not Board’s witnesses were 3A.(5) of of Judicial Conduct the Code testimony, did not commit give false and (Count 3), find, hand, on the other perjury. We at all Failing 4. to conduct herself insistence and Gushanas’s Respondent’s public promotes in a manner that every times one of these witnesses that each and impartiality and integrity perju- confidence in the testimony and committed gave false of a of 2A. of judiciary, is, the violation Canon ry put gently, to far-fetched. (Count 4),
the of Judicial Conduct Code Respondent and The Board the have of disqualify pro- in a as to some the Failing stipulations herself submitted 5. impartiality might pursuant in the case C.J.D.R.P. ceeding her facts which 502(D)(2). The including, accepted but No. Court the reasonably questioned, be to tri- proceeded and pertinent stipulations not limited to instances where she has al. personal prejudice concerning bias or (Count 3C.(l)(a) of
party, a violation Canon fact, findings of we will As make our we 5), efficacy of facts estab- discuss the those and the canons of lishing violations of prejudices proper Conduct which Board and the constitution asserted justice, a violation Ar- administration recited above. 18(d)(1) set out the six Counts V, § Pennsylvania ticle (Count 6). Constitution so, down fundamen- doing Before we set us in our tal direct work. principles which out of conduct al- charges These arise leged begun soon after her election constitutional amendment The bench in 1992 and to have continued certain establishing provided this Court Complaint of this in Novem- filing until the pro- for the conduct specific instructions ber 2006.1 this Court: ceedings before by the court witnesses,2 conducted hearings All presented Board
The proceedings conducted public shall offered to establish testimony whose adopted by the pursuant the rules The charges brought by Board. princi- with the and in accordance tipstaff court present and the law of evi- Gushanas,3 gave ples process of due secretary, Maureen pro- deputy, the and his testimony Respon- administrator court 1. The record contains secretaries, tipstaffs thonotaiy, Respondent’s continued even after Com- dent's conduct day.” plaint “goes president judges. was filed and law clerks three also, See, Coll). N.T. 1200-03 573-76 Moran. Respondent’s been Gushanas has 3.Maureen secretary She since March 2001. tipstaff or reporters, included court 2. These witnesses positions. presently both holds sheriffs, clerks, lawyers, deputy court *11 999 requires the Since the Constitution appealing dence. Parties before court ... shall that “all actions of the right discovery court shall a to have the by majority vote of require approval by the pursuant adopted to the rules (Pa. V, Art. of the court” Const. members subpoe- right court and shall have the 18(b)(4)) Findings § of Fact the Panel’s produc- the compel na witnesses and to is and this Decision have been reviewed documents, books, and tion of accounts Mindful of the by the full Court. rendered subject The other records as relevant. reality, jurisprudentially recognized, long presumed shall be inno- charges credibility of are best that assessments court, any proceeding cent in before the tes by made one hears the witnesses who the board shall the burden of and demeanor, the their tify and observes proving charges by clear and con- special accord defer obliged Court is vincing evidence. Fact. The Findings ence to the Panel’s of 18(b)(5). V, § Pa. Art. Const. Pennsylvania of has ad Supreme Court Pennsylvania Supreme The has Court subject as follows: dressed convincing defined clear and evidence as exists in long As as sufficient evidence follows: support adequate the record which is court, by the trial as finding found
The
must be found to be cred-
witnesses
finder,
precluded
fact
are
from over-
we
ible,
they testify
that the facts to which
affirm,
and must
turning
finding
distinctly
are
remembered and the de-
thereby paying
proper
deference
exactly
tails thereof narrated
and in due
due to the fact finder
heard the
who
order,
testimony
and that
their
is so
in the sole
testify and was
witnesses
clear, direct, weighty,
convincing
and
the demeanor of the
position to observe
to enable the
of
to come to a
[trier
fact]
credibility.
their
witnesses
assess
conviction,
clear
hesitancy, of
without
This rule of
is well established
law
the truth of the
in is-
precise facts
our
and is rooted
con-
jurisprudence
....
necessary
sue
is not
fairness,
ju-
of
common sense and
cepts
provided
evidence be uncontradicted
(citations omitted).
economy,
dicial
“carries a clear
to the mind”
conviction
Dept. Transportation v.
Commonwealth
or “carries a clear
of its
of
conviction
O’Connell,
873,
242, 248,
521 Pa.
555 A.2d
truth.”
(1989).
also,
See,
875
the observations
J.J.,
590,
Adoption
In re
Pa.
515
511
in Pat
Supreme
States
Court
United
(1986).
883,
See, also,
A.2d
886
LaRocca’s
Yount,
1025, 1038, 104S.Ct.
ton v.
467 U.S.
Trust,
633, 640,
409,
411 Pa.
192 A.2d
413
2885,
(1984), “...
the de
Luzerne in 2001. frequently She II. OF FINDINGS FACT appeared capacity Respon- in that before
AND DISCUSSION 10, when, February dent from 2001 to 2004 a particularly experience after bad in Re- findings The Court now makes its spondent’s Respondent court where had fact; stipulated those which are are so repeatedly badgered and rebuked for designated. soon, speaking reasons such as: for too for speaking enough, not soon not looking for INTRODUCTORY Respondent answering when she was V, § 1. Pursuant to Article 18 of the Respondent’s many inquiry as how wit- of the Constitution Commonwealth of having nesses she looked at the over had— Pennsylvania and Judicial Conduct Board to be got witnesses sure she number 81(A)(8), Rule of Procedure promulgated right “after months and months —and Pennsylvania Supreme Court taken,” all the had she report- abuse [she] (amended 20, 1996), March 1995 the Board ed this situation to the first assistant dis- granted authority to determine whether attorney trict and thereafter she probable there is cause to file formal assigned Respondent’s courtroom. and, charges, prob- it concludes that (N.T. Violi). 798, 810, 817-822 exists, charges, able cause to file formal Virginia Murtha-Cowley 5. has been against justice a justice, judge, or of the County in practicing law Luzerne since peace, proscribed pres- conduct and to 1985, public She worked as a defender in support charges ent the case of such February from until Since 1987 2007. Discipline. before the of Judicial Court employed by then she has been the Penn- (Stipulated). sylvania State Education Association. She 1992, January Respondent 2. Since friendly, relationship had a social Re- with continuously present has to the as a served year until time one spondent Christmas duly-elected Judge of the Court Com- it ended in an un- late 1990s when serving mon Pleas Judicial Eleventh friendly appeared frequently manner. She District, County, Pennsylvania. Luzerne in Respondent’s capacity courtroom in her (Stipulated). until After her public as a defender 2003. relationship personal B. HABITS RESPONDENT’S WORK ended, Respondent’s treatment of her Findings of Fact dramatically changed the courtroom years repeatedly personally humiliating 3. Krohn is old and was Theodore 75 Pennsylvania point Murtha-Cowley abusive to the where has been a member employed Respondent’s in became concerned that Bar since 1956. Krohn was obvi-
1001 animosity negatively ous toward her Toole now serves as senior (N.T. Toole). 240, County. 280 clients; and, in Luzerne affecting her upon her re- quest, she longer assigned was no to Re- 10. Respondent frequently late for spondent’s courtroom. 989-1005 (N.T. 39-45, Krohn; N.T. court. Murtha-Cowley). Violi; Murtha-Cowley; N.T. N.T. 1009-10 Cronin; 1051-52 N.T. 1267-68 Sam- Ingrid employed 6. Cronin is as an as- mon, R-643, 18; p. Exhibit N.T. 1424-34 public Scranton, sistant federal defender in Flaherty). Pennsylvania. She was admitted time During periods both which bar 1991. From 1992 through August *13 by employed Respondent, Krohn was Re- 2004, employed she was as an assistant spondent continually was late for court attorney County. district in Luzerne Dur- 20 possibly sessions “from minutes to an ing the course of her employment as an more,” many packed hour times with attorney, assistant district ap- Cronin attorneys. courtroom of This was a recur- peared Respondent before at least once ring problem occurring “a of number times per during periods week Respon- when week, per weeks more often than some dent was presiding over criminal cases. (N.T. Krohn). not.” 39-40 also, period Cronin for a years, of had a 12. in During periods both time which supervisory attorney’s role in the district employed by Respondent, Krohn was Re- her, office which required among other spondent people had in the court- waiting things, to daily direct the of assignments room for the business of court while she the assistant district attorneys before the her talking staff in chambers was (N.T. Cronin). judges. various 1033-38 working judicial On not matters. these 7. Rebecca Ann Sammon is a 2004 law occasions, Respondent instructed Krohn to graduate school presently by employed waiting that Respondent tell those was Pennsylvania Commonwealth of House of engaged research, in tell legal or to them Representatives. school, While in law Respondent delayed that had been because Sammon for Respondent worked as a law traffic problems or traffic accidents. summers, for May two from clerk/intern (N.T. Krohn). 41—45 through 2002 August May and from Respondent frequently 13. was absent (N.T. through July 1235-38, 2003. 1287- during from courthouse normal work- Sammon). 88 (N.T. days Toole; 257-58 ing hours. Sammon; Flaherty
8. Judith M. N.T. 1238 N.T. 1424-29 attorney is an Flaher- ty). practice Pennsyl- who admitted to in in January April
vania 1999. From 1999 by 14. We find that the events related through Flaherty March Ms. 2001 worked in testimony the witnesses in the this rec- Respondent for tip as a aw clerk. staff! reproduced ord in the Discussion which (N.T. Flaherty). 1408-11 follows occurred as described in the testi- mony at frequency the times and with the Toole, 9. Patrick J. Jr. has been a by related witnesses. as judge Pleas of Court Common Discussion County Luzerne since 1978. served He president judge the county from 1991 to testimony of these We find the wit president 1996 and was Re- Respondent’s nesses on habits to be work spondent first came the bench 1992. The then is: does the question credible.4 noting testimony. dispute Respondent 4. is worth that this testified 2003. April by day con- he worked conduct described these witnesses (N.T. 85). of the constitu- stitute a violation provisions charged
tional or canonical Nancy Violi testified: through In an- the Board Counts 6? A. There numerous incidents were swering important it most question there for PFA court when I was testimony we to deter- examine the take Lokuta would mine: bench, if she late that 1. these were incon- Whether absences always take the she would morning, i.e., a minutes —or
sequential, few always make a comment bench and not, and else’s fault. somebody many making times she was oc- infrequent Whether about derogatory comments currences —or not. Conahan, he the reason questions. As to Krohn answers both get bench to why she couldn’t to the the first he was asked: hearings be at her on time. ... what kind of Approximately *14 833). talking lateness are we about? Murtha-Cowley testified: Virginia Anywhere possi- A. from 20 minutes to What, you Q. anything, if ob- or bly an hour more. punc- served about Lokuta’s tuality in court? As to second asked: the he was Q. frequently? And how tendency late. A. She a to be has
And he answered: The then asked: Court say per A. a number оf times would me, late mean? Q. Excuse what does week, some more often than weeks 40). (N.T. not. answered: She Well, 15, 20, a waiting be we would this “one of Krohn also testified that on the get half hour. She would constantly problems” and recurring bench, then, know, you say and she “it basis continu- weekly that was on and take many things had other to care judge fashion” and that “the ing such Or of. That would be common. sessions, continually late for court go on the bench and get she would many packed for courtroom times 10 minutes more on another (N.T. 38-39). attorneys.” Krohn testified is her workload about how—what Respondent’s operan- modus that this was by the other and she is treated how his periods employment di both during and on judges by courts and clerk, i.e., Respondent’s from senior law 1009-10). (N.T. .... on January and from to June 2002 1998/1999 that April Krohn also testified 2003. occurring? Q. frequently How late for court on the last Respondent was 1,600 give parties judge testimony in order days fills fore for five over opportunity never resolve the pages attorneys this record but she denied an their (The only testimony these witnesses. testi- participation disputes without mony might regarded attempt as an 2829-32). However, which be (N.T. judge. Respon- the Board’s evidence is to ameliorate testifying witnesses were what the Board’s parties testimony that in PFA court the dent’s about). be- present 30 minutes scheduled be coming punctuality
Lokuta’s court? fairly frequently. A. That was
1010). referring And I be both. would Ingrid Cronin testified: you can them if separate What, if can tell the anything, want, 2002, summer of summer of punctu- Court about Lokuta’s ality? (N.T. 1267). A. She was late a lot.... The Court: It’s memory judge very often late. And can remem- is, can question The what tell very ber that many being about late. Judge Lokuta —took more ex- breaks than I would have rarely said she assume since pected, long breaks. you’re up showed the first time talk-
ing about the season. second Now, Mostly, late, yes. But the times that she you say can tell particular did come I remember one the Court mean that? instance had a civil trial. when she I think say it would fair to She frequently up would show expect
one could generally things to —she up about a half hour show start at hour least half an after get late. And often wouldn’t were originally scheduled and could 10:30, there until noon. She was be more than that. *15 (N.T. 1268). frequently late. Q. And frequent was that a occur- rence? Flaherty, Respondent’s Judith law
clerk/tipstaff, testified: Q. Court, you any- What can if tell Yes, that was a frequent occurrence. (N.T. thing, Judge punctu- about Lokuta’s 1051-52). ality in the court? Sammon, legal
Rebecca in- Respondent’s tern, testified: normally A. What is if happen would Now,
Q. frequently Judge how had Lo- she didn’t court a lot of the have kuta during been at her office that times she come in until wouldn’t first summer? if day later in the court wasn’t Definitely 9:00 not like to 5:00 Not— scheduled, usually in the afternoon Monday through Friday. It would maybe couple for a come in hours only be sometimes she’d come in and do and then leave.... So work Sometimes, once a you week. normally happen would know, I on know she vacation. went assigned case, got when we nor- But there were where I times would mally we’d call her let her know week, only see if her once a that. usually because she wasn’t in.... Q. During you the second summer Q. Where Lokuta? Judge was her, frequently worked for was how A. She was home.
she at the office? 1241). (N.T. A. More often.... conversations, What, Q. you if tell the A. From the she was at anything, can Judge Dupont. Court about home in Judge Lokuta— JUDGE SPRAGUE: from the in which way Conversations conclusion Judge like spoke had had Lokuta that sounded you on occasions with somebody up. had woken She who Judge Lokuta? fact, said, up. her never she woke A. Myself Usually or Susan. Susan is, many times question So the how get call, Susan would call her mid-afternoon secretary. her get her come to court? JUDGE SPRAGUE: But did Right. frequently How would speak directly Judge occasion to call her the afternoon to Lokuta? get Lokuta to come into Judge A. A times I had. few court? JUDGE SPRAGUE: And she home? Well, Susan most time it was A. She home. call her. But it was every criminal matter that
usually times, any, Were there if where usually we And around late had. know, had to call Lokuta to wake noon, you morning or around up sure, her in the afternoon to come into knew Susan we the office? her. occa- would call There’s few actually call the sions that had Objection, MR. SINATRA: Your Sometimes would call judge. Honor. in. But most of the times it was JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. calling Susan to let her know. I had There would be times that her. Sometimes called know, said, to let her call her like 1424-29). trial, about criminal we testified an incident Toole about know, heard hadn’t about— in 1994 he which occurred or 1995 when her. I could heard from tell president judge: she had like she sounded —it youDo *16 recall an incident where up. had woken Judge Lokuta’s chambers and called What made think that? You she not there? was can tell the Court. I I a number of times called recall Well, sounds, way your the voice you’re she there. one wasn’t The know, like a groggy groggy, is, talking again, probably about voice, know, who had someone find, they I’d to are all have because know, just, you up from a woken back and forth about memorandums know, tell sleep. You can like it, assigned a trial that she was isn’t clear. your talking voice morning particular day. Early that occur? how often would that I sent anoth- that case was settled. tried. er her courtroom to be case to morning inquired I I Later that to Objection MR. SINATRA: the was told that— question. form of the me, SPRAGUE: Excuse that JUDGE by admin-
objection is sustained. The witness
I
informed
the court
was
I
that
the
that
had
say definitely
has
able
istrator
case
not been
day
gave
assigned to
Lokuta
up.
woke her
She
she
1005
I
by
was continued until 1:30.
went
in
at a
court
court
time chosen
the
down,
called,
I
apologize.
court, wait,
in a
court-
“packed
sometimes
called
office and I asked to
room,”
judge.
for the arrival of the
speak
judge.
to the
told
was
These
considerations lead us
the secre-
was unavailable.
asked
finding
contemporaneous
that this conduct
tary if she
there or out of the
brings
judicial
is such that
office into
said,
And I
building.
I want
disrepute
subjects Respondent
which
know, is
finally
she there. And
18(d)(1)
V, §
discipline under Article
of the
secretary
said me—
Pennsylvania Constitution.
—that, no,
she was not
the build-
Trkula,
(Pa.Ct.
ing.
concerned, because, one,
3,
I was
In In re
699 A.2d
Jud.Disc.1997),
I was
no
given
(referring
notice that she
this Court
to our
Smith,
not going
present
opinion
to be
that morn-
in In re
1006 Smith, also, the 15 She is 1239; sylvania years. In re for last supra, at see (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005), court- 570, generally assigned Respondent’s A.2d 576 Harrington, 877 407, every other month. room for one week d, 587 Pa. 899 A.2d aff' (N.T. Tratthen). 25, (2006); McCarthy, In re 828 A.2d 750-52 1120 Zoller, (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2003); In re 29 792 has employed Daniel J. been 17. Coll (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2001); In 34, A.2d 38 re the reporter by as court of Com- a Court (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. Strock, 653, 727 A.2d 657 County, Pennsylva- mon Pleas of Luzerne Trkula, 1998); and In re 699 A.2d 7. years he eight 30 for the last years, nia for Certainly expectations the reasonable He reporter. chief court deputy has been public the expectation the would include court- assigned Respondent’s has been the same judicial that the officer act with (N.T. 556- 80 times. approximately room the court as those members of respect for Coll). public by obeying the the court’s has employed Ruth Wasiluk been 18. expec- scheduling order; include the would the reporter by as court Court of Com- judicial the officer act tation would Pennsylva- County, Pleas of mon Luzerne for the time and sched-
with consideration She has been chief court nia since 1976. working people ules of the hard who crowd as- since 1990. She has been reporter courtroom; the and would include ex- aas signed Respondent’s courtroom judicial that a officer con- pectation 50 times. As reporter approximately court with the same deference and duct herself as- reporter court her duties include chief taught for others as is the consideration judges. to the signing reporters court the homes of Luzerne Coun- schools Wasiluk). (N.T. 774-76 ty. Respondent’s conduct described Sharkey T. has been 19. William which this record is the kind of conduct administrator for the Court of Com- court office courts in gives judicial itself and County, Pennsylva- Pleas of Luzerne mon a “bad name.” general years. ten As court admin- nia for last Respon- that the conduct of We conclude for the overall responsible istrator he is judi- bring was so extreme as to dent system. entire court supervision into disrepute. cial office Sharkey). IN CONDUCT COURTROOM C. Miscavage employed 20. Donna office of Court prothonotary’s Findings of Fact County, Penn- Pleas of Luzerne Common presently em- Angela Sallemi is employed there sylvania. She has been Court ployed by the States District United 2000. From 2000 2006 worked since Pennsylvania in for the Middle District of been Since 2006 she has a court clerk. 1985 to Scranton, From Pennsylvania. appealed the transmittal of responsible as a court September 2006 she worked Her duties appellate courts. cases to the Pleas of in the of Common reporter Court swearing in the as court clerk included She County, Pennsylvania. Luzerne witnesses, assisting attorneys picking courtroom for assigned Respondent’s verdict, recording taking the juries, (N.T. 711- every four to six weeks. week *18 office, prothonotary’s in the verdict Sallemi). 13 handling tipstaff in filling for Dur- of exhibits. juries keeping track has L. Tratthen been em- 16. Lisa assigned she was period 2000-2006 by ing reporter a court the Court ployed as a courtroom one week Respondent’s County, Penn- Pleas of Luzerne Common 1007 (N.T. Respondent’s full resigned, Misca- she she was maybe month more. 1075-77 a Youngclaus person- vage). time law clerk. from 1985 until Respondent’s al friend of employed 21. Maura Cusick has been (N.T. position. her 1319-27 resigned County a clerk in the Luzerne as court Youngclaus). Her
prothonotary’s office since 2001. sit in the courtroom require duties Moyer employed by Re- 28. Susan proximity presiding judge. to the close 18, May February 2005 to spondent from in Respondent’s She was the court clerk Respon- as 17, Sometimes she acted 2005. days per courtroom from to four two her secre- tipstaff and sometimes as dent’s (N.T. Cusick). month. 1147-48 (N.T. tary. Moyer). 1364 prothono- 22. Jill Moran has been the employed by 29. Susan Weber tary County January in Luzerne since County. of Luzerne She orphans’ court practices pri- Moran also as a 2002. Ms. executive secre- Respondent’s as worked attorney. she is prothonotary, vate As December 2001 tary through from 1996 for of court responsible assignment September from 2002 again, and then (N.T. to the courtrooms. clerks various (N.T. 1461-62, March 2004. through Moran). 1184-86 Weber). 1470-71 employed 23. Anna V. Torres has been prac- J. Mecadon has been a 30. Girard by County a Luzerne deputy as sheriff attorney the Commonwealth ticing (N.T. years. for department sheriffs six currently He is Pennsylvania since 1991. Torres). 915-16 and serves employed practitioner as a solo em- Joyce 24. James Patrick has been part-time public defender as as as a the Luzerne ployed deputy sheriff Township, in Buck Luzerne Coun- solicitor County department sheriffs since Febru- January through April 2002 ty. From (N.T. ary Joyce). 2001. 941-42 2002, Respondent’s as Mecadon worked Barry 25. L. Stankus the sheriff of (N.T. junior clerk. 868- part-time or law County Luzerne from 2000 to the end of Mecadon). 69 (N.T. Stankus; Lo- 2007. 957-58 3035-36 kuta). impatient, 31. per to court undignified and discourteous Cynthia
26. L. Rachilla is a coui’t re- including: sonnel County porter employed by the Luzerne 22 position court. She has held that (N.T. 50, 154-55 reporters Court (N.T. Rachilla).
years. Coll; Krohn; 557-59, N.T. N.T. 566-69 Selyne prac- Sallemi; Tratthen; been Youngclaus has 713-22 N.T. 752-66 attorney Wasiluk); as an in the ticing 779-81, Commonwealth N.T. 787-788 Pennsylvania years. for 25 Her law (N.T. 535-39 Court administration practice primarily consists of criminal and Sharkey); Youngclaus relations matters. domestic office) (prothonotary’s clerks Court Wyoming Coun- positions also holds two (N.T. Violi; Coll; N.T. N.T. 828-29 juvenile defender for ty, public one as Miscavage; N.T. 1149-61 Cu- 1078-95 (since 2004) as a di- cases and the other Moran); sick; N.T. 1198-1203 1989). (since April From master vorce Krohn; 2003, 75-77 Youngclaus Deputy sheriffs 2002 until June worked Torres; 966-68 Stan- clerk. N.T. 916-31 N.T. Respondent’s part-time law kus; Miscavage); N.T. 1088-89 From that date to November *19 (N.T. Attorneys 85-86, Discussion Krohn; 159-61 560-64, Coll; N.T. 571-72 N.T. 641-48 We set samples down here of the testi- Rachilla; Wasiluk; N.T. 785-86 N.T. mony Findings which leads us to make Violi; R-643,
800-26 Exhibit pp. 18-20 Fact Nos. 31 and 32. Sammon; N.T. Murtha-Cowley; 1001-09 Krohn, Theodore Respondent’s senior Cronin; N.T. 1035-41 N.T. 1086 Misca- clerk law testified: vage; Moran; N.T. 1192-96 N.T. 1337- ... And caused what this movement Youngclaus; 1343-46 N.T. 1464-68 judge from one to the person- other Weber); ality, I’m competent say. not I’m Everybody in the courtroom including psychiatrist not a a psychologist. witnesses, victims, parties, probation of- All I you, can tell is witnessed Krohn; ficers 154-55 N.T. 557-58 very abrupt, those cataclysmic mood Coll; Violi; N.T. 828-36 N.T. 1042-45 changes. IAnd use the word cata- Cronin; Miscavage). N.T. 1078-95 clysmic because they that’s what were. 32. Respondent’s conduct in the court- frequent How were these mood room created a tense and stressful аtmo- changes? sphere in her courtroom and had serious They frequent during became more negative ability effect on the per- court my second period with the sonnel and attorneys properly perform that I believe was one of the their addition, duties. In Respondent’s contributing wanting reasons conduct made it difficult for the various leave. came back because I judicial support offices the Luzerne hoped had that I could be of some County Pleas, Court Common as well as use, meaningful apparently but for the attorney, office of the district the case. addition, staff her courtroom. In Respon- dent’s deputy treatment of the sheriffs performance
interfered of their Was there anything precipitat- duties and was so rude and upsetting that ed these kinds of mood changes? the sheriff had to rotate them out of Re- It could have been the personality spondent’s every courtroom hour or hour attorneys involved certain (N.T. 558-59, Coll; and a half. 561-62 cases. anything. Could have been Rachilla; N.T. Sallemi; 641-48 N.T. 721-22 They just happened. That’s all I 752, 754-56, N.T. Tratthen; 760-64 N.T. know. Wasiluk; Violi; 787-88 N.T. 799-803 N.T. happened,
918-22, Torres; Joyce; 929-31 N.T. 950-53 were the characteristics of her be- Stankus; N.T. 966-71 N.T. 996 Murtha- havior? 1035-36, Cowley; 1038-41, N.T. 1057-58 Cronin; 1079-80, N.T. Miscavage; 1087-98 A. She extremely became combative. Moran). N.T. 1186-90 She became irrational. somewhat Q. And who was directed at?
33. We find that the by events related in the testimony witnesses this rec- anybody could be directed at reproduced area, ord in the Discussion which the dep- within immediate sheriffs, follows occurred as uty described the testi- stenogra- court mony staff, at the times frequency phers, and with the the court counsel who related the witnesses. present in the courtroom. *20 constantly, as a weapon The court administrator’s office sometimes great against parties. the brunt of a deal of this.
So. you you Could mean explain what you explain that? Can
by that, they when the brunt were A. she asks a defen- Especially when example. of it? For you give Can dant a their edu- party what specific a example? is, background they cational they dropped
should mention they out when in of school Well, A. already I’ve indicated that she ninth grade. would come down hard on the sher- her Immediately, vocabulary gowill iffs deputies. She would come way past college just level. She down hard on stenogra- the court people talks to these in such a manner phers. She would come down hard rapid speed, and at such a rate of on whoever within happened area-(N.T. 153-55). are a caught like deer head- lights. They don’t understand what Coll, deputy Daniel chief court reporter saying. she is She could start talking eight years, reporter court for 30 people, French to these and it would years, testified: make as much sense to them. Q. How does Lokuta conduct (N.T. 557-59). herself on the bench? also He testified: Exactly what occurred we were depends because peo- she’s two standing at sidebar. There was a ple. good On a day, she will be my sidebar conference. I take ma- always fine. She’s Always stern. tripod. chine off the Now the ma- she does demand respect and such paper tray chines have the which is things. On a day, bad whatever deeper than So if the machine. I always wrong. do is flat, try to set it machine is at You can do procedure the same an angle such as this. yesterday, today wrong. but it is The a keep box tis- So never expect know what sues on the bench that I would slide courtroom, walk into her my in front of underneath machine to you, she how will treat how will she angle an I raise at could write. treat counsel or parties. And so This instance said I one she need a what makes it difficult when tissue. So I lifted machine. assigned are Lokuta. pushed her the box of tissues. problem Do doing your me, eyes Keeping job her courtroom? grabbed the box of tissues and slid bench, opposite them to the end of the flipped to counsel and said continue am my job able to accomplish counsel. in her courtroom but it while is with
great consternation at times. She stood back and said can’t write well, very makes it do you difficult that she like She said this.
speaks incredibly suggest? fast. She has And I looked down very vocabulary high which she uses other end of the box of tissues. later, A are in time, couple of weeks we
And at that looked point *21 Court, has PFA then says why don’t court. She back at her and she by Summary followed Court my they at feet as all do? you kneel —or by followed Motions Court. then take their girls Some I taking I’m Court finishes. machines, it as drop possible, low as —PFA talking is taking am down—she her feet and kneel on put down there lawyers to the that are now top step. for apologizing Court for Motions I first time knew that That was the blah, blah, delay blah as and for now she is me.... usual. says why at me and She looks down word I every Then she tells us There is taking are this you down? speak I enter the courtroom is you Why us. are tak- no case before to be taken down. From the moment is I ing And that this down? courtroom, every I walk into word this cannot in her court- mean. You win is to be taken down. Because her. please room. You cannot What any- don’t take judges, the other today. not yesterday good is
thing until the case called in down is 566-69). It is a whim. you begin to make you. front of Then the record. Mr. questioning by Court Under Coll testified:
The come out and start judge would general au- making statements to up taking SPRAGUE: And JUDGE sorry delay, about I’m dience areas, what can describe the other gentlemen, burgeoning her ladies and of conduct to- to the in terms Court things being schedule and personal in the courtroom? lawyers wards at eleventh hour. upon thrust her give examples, And if can again, when. approximately I state taking I down because wasn’t this down, this taking not used to this 2003, say maybe right. All Let’s tipstaff at that kind of stuff. And her that, 2002, even earlier than maybe Gushanas, is time Maureen he Court, she did have back when Civil say I her taking this down heard that argument a civil oral there was Judge. counsel came for. says you looks down me and She taking Every down? are not notified counsel that have A. She to be taken down. speak
word their oral present minutes to seven on, taking from I start Fine. So then her, 3.5 min- having arguments says from start everything down I had never heard apiece. utes to finish. rule before. later, weeks I’m with Several try get in as they start So again. argument possible much of their year a MR. SINATRA: Can we stops coun- minutes. And she 3.5 year for the again? Can we have counsel, says cannot sel dead first instance? that fast due to possibly write probably say I would goes on syndrome, 2005— outlet thoracic of the nerves explanation with the in her hands. tingling Go ahead. SPRAGUE: JUDGE She looks at says you steps her watch and take Now take two forward. Sheriff, now have 1 minute you, and 15 seconds to one to the left. And your argument. conclude So back steps he starts want to take two argument. Sheriff, to continue his right. It’s one one to the think instance of putting right counsel want seated there spot. difficult by the door.... seat *22 JUDGE SPRAGUE: Just stick to BY MR. PUSKAS: you what observed and recount it as Coll, you Mr. could tell the Court faithfully you your can without own you what observed about Judge Lo- views about it. You gave an illustra- kuta’s treatment of Court Clerks? tion. Give some more if there are and approximately when. very A. Just that demanding she is them. A usually— Court Clerk is Okay. Throughout tenure, A. her Court, in PFA especially they get demands copies of exhibits. If petition. They put have to pull counsel should an exhibit from seal on it. folder, his copy he has to have a for Court, counsel, opposing witness the record. may A. And she hand —she be And if he doesn’t appropri- have the trying to hand the clerk another ate amount of copies, this Court will busy document. clerk doing The is you recess until complete that they are doing, and she will task. And she will recess the case chastise them. eye want one 15, 20 minutes he while has to find a me at always all times so can
photocopier now and making start all try take these documents when I copies. these you. hand them to That is one
She won’t allow counsel to share a instance with the clerks that I have copy of the exhibit and stand there seen. with the witness. She demands all of open JUDGE Is this in SPRAGUE: extra copies. these court? just many There are so instances Oh, yes. throughout her tenure. It is difficult JUDGE SPRAGUE: —in front of who- (N.T. 571-73). pull them out. ever is the courtroom? Counsel inquired Respon- then about Yes, Judge.
dent’s treatment deputy sheriffs and JUDGE SPRAGUE: And what is the court clerks: frequency of that kind of comment? BY MR. PUSKAS: A. Again, depends on the clerk. If Can tell anything the Court clerk, she does not like the she will your about observations of be criticized often. That all I can Lokuta’s treatment of Sheriffs in say. her courtroom?
JUDGE SPRAGUE: This went from when to when that would see— A. She position would direct the exact (N.T. in which she goes day. wanted a sheriff to A. This on to this Sheriff, 573-76). stand or sit. want
Angela Sallemi, reporter looking way court in Lu- at her in a that she County years, zerne for 23 testified that appropriate thinks is not or it could between 2004 and 2006: something can’t we even made very difficulty— to feel uncomforta- determine. other The
ble in her courtroom. The reason go want me to on about the for that is because I 714-16). never knew difficulties? when I to be embar- Tratthen, Lisa court in Lu- reporter put spot. rassed or on the County years, zerne for 15 testified: The particular couple par- one or a report- And are able as a court ticular occasions swearing when was out effectively carry er in Judge witness court- Lokuta’s reporting court duties in Lo-
room, here, just as I was sworn kuta’s courtroom? name, spell asked witness to just something and it’s that I routine- and no. Yes *23 ly do in other courtrooms. And when Q. you explain that? Could finished, I Judge the looked down my A. I’ll do best. The courtroom at- glaringly me and in a harsh tone said mosphere very itself is uncomforta- I the in my swear witnesses court- myself. 'ble for Then get once we room, I and mean I was embarrassed testimony any into kind of or momentarily myself and also for hearings might kind of that we things because when like have, on occasion— occur, people there are other in courtroom, you and can kind of see like and little snickers rolls of the Q. Why is it uncomfortable? like, eyes okay, day. it’s that kind of A. very your job It’s difficult to do Q. you Can tell the about these Court turn every you when time around that, moods? do you by What mean you’re stopped trying from to do you’ve these that moods referenced? job, I
your example and the that have is in the mid-1990s I decided Well, moods, A. randomness her enough trying that I had to had know, you there will be times figure my out what was in notes very courtroom kind when she is sloppy that the tempo were because and solicitous to witnesses and at- very, very in the courtroom is fast. torneys. And then in a moment’s stop any- So I decided that I would time, her demeaning, moods become Lokuta that body including Judge demanding, and that’s what I mean I at- speaking too fast. So by her moodiness. tempted go to into the courtroom things precipitate Are there day stop I felt whenever change? that mood necessary. anything could be or it could be Now, you something had mentioned nothing. It could be as little as— know, your being sloppy. about notes Can may lawyers there you’re talking litigants explain in the back of the court- making prob- room too much noise or about there? What was lem with you’re *24 Q. You had made a statement earlier
to the hearsay. in your testimony that when I asked JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. you you experienced about whether This not hearsay. relating She is you difficulties the courtroom what she said. you said and I to depended, want said, I you know, A. I can’t do this you explain by what meant that? anymore. It’s too difficult. Just put don’t me pretty back there depends on her attitude which
much, very and then the I day next can so change quickly. One minute go had up back to the courtroom. congenial. she can be One minute very Same time frame the next day. ranting, raving, later she is chastis- And before court I was invited into attorneys ing really for reason at no tipstaff, chambers area her Maybe attorney all. have didn’t cappuccino was offered so could copy a may of an exhibit. He keep up her. with attorney. been an He out-of-town I found that very upsetting because protocol. didn’t know her She only trying job.... to do my having would chastise him for not copy go right an exhibit and then Q. you problems Have had in Judge congenial. being back into There is poli- Lokuta’s courtroom with place no—she is all over the as protocols cies you on how should far goes. as attitude your do work?
A. Yes. Q. you tell the you Can Court when Can explain that? use the can chastising, word manner, tone,
describe question Judge Lokuta does She asked him concern- volume when ing he not—he this? the case. He said the file to ob- would have retrieve Volume, high, extremely extremely tain that information. She chastised high. goes up Her octaves voice him not file in front of having for very, very rapid at a at times and loud, very him in a loud voice told extremely pace. pace, rapid him to retrieve the file. He turned bearing her physical What about file, at around retrieve the which bench, at the sitting when she is he his point turning was chastised speaking from the bench at then, Judge. again, back on the He high volume? peddled her and back into the faced very like frustrated. She She is literally table to retrieve file very to be frustrated. Just seemed trying his hands him to find behind ranting raving. try do not the file. her too look at much when she— file, the file picked He did find the report- I’m in her courtroom file, at he up, opened point which do, ing because sometimes if the file opening was chastised for be- wants to what are know open cause he not directed to up at if looking happen look only file. He told to retrieve the her, try to look at her. at so do file. do mean? Does she What reporter, court can Q. As chief you? question you tell the Court about the effect at, you looking why are are What has had on Judge Lokuta you looking me. So I even don’t group people? try to attention to her as far pay object I’m MR. SINATRA: looking at her. to that. *25 JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. She in Q. you’ve Judge been Loku- When I reporter, is the chief court as under- courtroom, have observed ta’s it, developed it that her stand and was of attorneys? her treatment reporters report to her. Yes, I A. have. Yes. I MR. PUSKUS: believe Q. tell the Court incidents Can beginning, in the Your Hon- said that that observed? or. A. sure can. I reporter a court Any A. time that
comes from court has down they sitting Judge, Singer an been with Attorney Mark who was upset. They very are very are Attorney District at Assistant in They’re very tense pleas for tense. handling guilty time was go up Office, morning they before have to Attorney’s She the District to knowing going hap- the time. what is doing guilty at pleas was to chas- pen. they going get Are a a man was had case where We something, for de- in At- tised what’s pleading front of bench. to like. When file meanor torney Singer did not have his down, they upset, come are they He had in front of him the time. time, all the just him. tense and nervous on table that behind it а was ADA, only part I take in the all the time. It’s a stressful situa- As an complaint hearings, indirect criminal tion. hearings PFA I no so the civil have can observed What —have obviously they because are part come anyone crying they when day, particular And on this civil. from court? down hearing there a civil PFA was Absolutely. Absolutely. Three re- being conducted.... porters just right that I can name off the come top head have had asked me at Judge Lokuta crying. down point get involved in that hear- one And who would be? parents of the ing behalf Tratthen, Klesh, Kimberly A. Lisa I that that minor child. knew wasn’t Rosemary Schwalm. do, me to and I told appropriate for She judge that I couldn’t do that. any problems Have had run- and, again, again, me to do it ordered ning department because of said, judge, I I can’t do that. This is these Judge difficulties with Loku- hearing. I’m here on behalf of ta? civil Attorney’s Office. I District have Yes, nobody go because wants this, very, very and it place no very, very with her. It’s difficult to uncomfortable. get somebody really who wants I even to describe don’t know how sit with the Natu- work. tension, you it. The could cut it have rally, they so go, but very in that room. It with knife difficult to get somebody really extremely upset that she obvious go. try want to much cover as this, doing me for not and I with possible as because I do understand doing upset wasn’t it to her. try the tension and I to alleviate inappropriate that it was for me knew possible, as much as does to do. (N.T. 779-88). Dan Coll. forward, day things From that be- Nancy Violi, attorney, assistant district very came different between
testified: basis, regular Lokuta and I. And on a beginning So I had anytime appear in front of her these PFA hearings, prob- had no PFAs, it walking for was like was lems Lokuta. She was target into that courtroom as a *26 fine. She just every treated me like just her. There was constant attacks. other treated me in the coun- me, trying She to belittle make it was ty, but that all of changed kind one though perform my look as I couldn’t day. hearing There a civil that duties as an ADA. being conducted. object I’m MR. SINATRA: that, Q. you put Could a time frame on Honor, again, Your and ask that it be to the best recollection? stricken. recollection, my A. To the best of I Motion denied. JUDGE SPRAGUE: maybe say would have to end you please, so the Court un- Could 2002 to sometime around derstands, tone, the vol- explain the there. an ADA— As ume, the manner in which she ad- you? starting You
dressed Oh, with this incident getting gosh. about in- I it’s in the tran- know in a volved civil matter. script, but she cut me off several times when I trying explain just glared She at me. —she myself. eyes just was—I could feel her pen- you personal Did make etrating notes of this right through me. She was matter? very abrupt. She was loud. These things
are all that I know when I actually Things gotten did. had transcript read a don’t really just way so out of hand with the I through you’re come because all being by treated her that I reading just are page, words on a didn’t expect, even know what to so way but the that she you, looks at actually I taking started notes of all uses, she—the tone of voice that she crazy things kind of hap- that were she is loud. pening just because it was so bi- zarre, I couldn’t hap- believe it was She actually, on one occasion is— (N.T. 817-18). pening myself. she hunched over at me from her actually put bench. She her hands on And, Violi continued: the bench and hunched over me point A. At that I actually went and scolding when she was me for some- boss, got my First Assistant Dis- thing. things These are all that Attorney trict Jackie Carroll be- don’t see reading a transcript. cause she didn’t know about all the (N.T. 800-03). problems that I having had been She further testified: Lokuta. had never told her that. about during Could tell the Court
course of those two matters that you had, ICCs, those two was there JUDGE You SPRAGUE: don’t have some.... Do specific recall repeat it. After told the First things? your problems, Assistant what oc- curred? I do. I remember kept cutting me off times several when was point I think everything At explain trying myself. I think kind overwhelmed me after maybe hearing, with the first months and months of all the abuse question many had arisen as to how I had taken I actually witnesses the had. Commonwealth broke into down tears when I was it. talking her about that, When she I just— asked me because had had all witnesses hap- JUDGE SPRAGUE: Then what standing to—I my right. believe was pened? quickly looked my right over to telling ensure that was her the cor- ... JUDGE SPRAGUE: it then Was
rect number of witnesses. As soon as longer no went front of *27 that, I turning did she scolded me for Judge Lokuta? said, away you from her and are to Yes, A. Your Honor. you talking look at me when are Any JUDGE SPRAGUE: further me, just trying and I was to see how questions? many I witnesses had. So there was
that incident. MR. PUSKAS: Yes. you What can tell trying get the Court about an idea. You can’t relate your observations as an every Assistant each and incident. I’m trying DA in Judge Lokuta’s courtroom an get picture idea in the court- about her treatment of other attor- room.
neys? definitely repetitive. I was mean
though
it seemed as were —there attorneys days There were numerous occasional where there would incidents, they treated I just poorly were as as be no but were kind They
was. would be scolded for far few and between. just very things really little part, always For the most there was wouldn’t anyone even draw else’s lot something, of times it was (N.T. 820-23). attention. me, directed at there but were times me, it Violi when was directed at but there questioned about Respondent’s it treatment of other were times when was directed at personnel: court people. always other Somebody was Did an while opportunity getting by Judge hammered Lokuta is an were Assistant At- District (N.T. 831-32). like. seemed torney Judge Lokuta’s courtroom to observe how she treated other inquired The Court of Ms. Violi: personnel? court I ques- JUDGE SPRAGUE: have one A. Yes. I recall an incident with the tion. your heard talk about clerk who was at PFA hearings one Judge observations of Lokuta and the day. reporters treatment of court oth- Q. When would that have been? The ers, and I understand the use of the year? to those word master under but in again believe this was when we public, terms of the to whatever ex- courthouse,
were the main so public tent the in the courtroom very 2008 to the beginning of 2004. parties attor- opposed
neys litigation, can describe Judge treatment of them? Lokuta’s A. And were up we at the bench get- ting ready to have the witnesses Yes, can, Your Honor. in, sworn and as clerk get- you, JUDGE SPRAGUE: Would ting ready in, to swear them please. yelled Judge taking the clerk for A. There numerous occasions long too to swear the witnesses in. where— literally up had been maybe
at the bench a second or two. A. There were numerous occasions Have opportunity had the of speak, where she would kind Judge hear Lokuta— say, above their level of un- JUDGE SPRAGUE: Excuse me. derstanding. quite And to be hon- question, Could I ask one est, many there were times you just an related incident like some of the words that Loku- experiences Lo- ta used even I had a hard time kuta, special this a incident or understanding.... thing was this kind of repetitive? maybe mean people. different I’m *28 Every day there was ploded. single times
A. And there were other where kind of tirade. being with certain some observed her curt witnesses, victims, If Defendants. and maybe out of turn
they spoke you you meant Q. had asked what speak yet didn’t them to she want in ex- you she came and when said completing until done what- she was ex- ploded. you specifically Can colloquy ever her whatever that? plain you mean what was, thought be curt her she would not with them tell them this is and until this speak, time to wait things, depend. Certain It would speaking. Jurist is done things, people, different different The manner
JUDGE SPRAGUE: on in her noises that went different about, you talking are speaking just rattled her and just courtroom in a speaking the manner of courteous going her start off. would make arrogant mariner or in an manner? when it was you And never knew know, going happen, you definitely say arrogant. I would proceeding. You’d throughout right. SPRAGUE: All JUDGE there, sitting call a Ev- be witness. (N.T. 834-36). Cross-examine. along, be erything would one of the court Miscavage, Donna like something happen, would then clerks, Re- to how it was in testified as witness, said, it whether would courtroom whenever she was spondent’s noise, something someone said. years in to 2006 as assigned there building just her you And can see follows: she building finally where was, it what is my question believe And then after just explode. would working Judge Lokuta’s like downhill, that, and that’s it all went courtroom? into it there on way went from proceeding. the end anxiety filled A. What is like. Its pre- you say explode, what When day. every assigned If were do? cisely would she week, Monday her that come filled with anxi- morning go-
ety. You didn’t know what was yelling, would start whether She her happen courtroom ing just get agitated, at—She would All the court clerks con- day. very easily. If a wit- very agitated, stantly fought over— and she was on stand ness whatever, she’d hear them
couldn’t that. speak up and say can Relate what SPRAGUE: JUDGE a second time And if she had ask you participated observed time, see could or a third your feelings. then And then from building. in, and, go like Okay. You would thing. on, every on little picked she said, there. You sit and manner her tone What was her to come out would wait for yell- you mentioned she was knowing what sort the bench man- her tone and What day. ing? she was mood not, and volume? ex- ner likely more than then *29 loud, fast, A. Very very very talked Miscavage, you Ms. also mentioned mood, nice. in your testimony Judge Lo- you kuta’s mood. What did observe JUDGE you SPRAGUE: Can alús- about Lokuta’s mood? trate? Become an actress here.
A. constantly She would complain changed go A. a lot. She would
about having microphones no in her from, said, you like I start would courtroom and she couldn’t hear out, maybe and she would be an and that. And a witness would be okay yelling mood. She be wouldn’t stand, on the say, she’d ma- And it anything. then would dame, you speak can up, I can’t change in an instant. go She would you. hear go And then it would on from a good mood to a bad mood. bit, for little say, and she’d ma- know, You mainly when she went to dame, madame, please you could a bad mood it stayed like that. speak up, there’s microphone no courtroom, you, cannot hear But, know, you break, if she took a please, why you forward, don’t sit whatever, she’d come out composed sit forward so can you we hear bet- over, again, and we’d start and she’d ter. And this every day every was okay. But then go right she’d proceeding this was her manner. being mood, back to in a yelling, bad picking, nitpicking everything you What did observe about went on in the courtroom. physical persons effect whom she speaking if there frequently how observe a witness on the stand? this behavior? Very frequently, daily. almost just You sorry had to peo- feel
ple. They very felt intimidated. You can see— Q. What, anything, if ob-
served about Lokuta’s treat- attorneys ment of in her courtroom JUDGE SPRAGUE: What did you’ve been there? observe terms of physical reac- tion, any, by if witnesses to what
have described? May MR. SINATRA: we have a time— they Sometimes turn would They try
red. would to do what she JUDGE SPRAGUE: Let her start asking them to do. But she question her answer. Part of the know, keep repeating. would You if give us the time frame to the best they thought they speaking up your ability, Counsel. to, know, after she asked them give It’s difficult to a time frame They became embarrassed. consistently. because it happened nervous, get lose their train years spent Six in her courtroom thought just kept because she daily and was almost on a basis. picking picking, could very attorneys, She was not nice to shake, visibly see them shake. especially attorneys from who were county.
out of *30 Now, nice, Q. just for her to come you say very you would wait
that doesn’t mean to the out on the bench. And no one could much Court, you explain just relaxing. if can relax. There no pre- more was in, you just high cisely you what mean. You went were know, and, until strung you wait she JUDGE Give some illus- SPRAGUE: out, bench, and came took the then trations. then, proceedings okay, started and way they A. The labeled the exhibits or going happen. let’s see what’s they copies if didn’t have her, they exhibits for if stood when What, Q. you if observe anything, stand, they— she them to if wanted Judge about Lokuta’s treatment mean, they if stood when she sheriffs? they wanted them to sit. If were stand, sitting, she wanted them to if happy A. She never sheriffs. was know, they speak up, you didn’t many There was either too sheriffs bench, no, up come back to the sit courtroom, sheriffs, in her too little tables, arguments their know, in you too few sheriffs her Just, you know, that. she found happy courtroom. She never everything. fault with almost Them, too, they stood. if where
BY MR. PUSKAS: if they standing, they were were Q. you personally difficulty Did have sitting, just happy. she She wasn’t in doing your duties as a court clerk change they it. If were wanted her courtroom? them to sit. standing, she wanted they got
If an- sitting, were she A. Yes. them to stand. noyed and wanted tell them where And then she would Q. you why? explain Can to stand the courtroom. She within and, anxiety A. feeling Because they ever happy wasn’t where know, knowing when never they her courtroom. If within there be an going outburst moved, know, they if rattled Myself personally or whatever. keys, annoyed whatever job do —it just went and tried to And annoyed her. her. in, my ability, go get to the best of stop proceedings ask would done, get it out and—But there was if they problem. them had a outburst, always an never knew who 1079-89). at, it it going to be directed was me, going going to be to be Cusick, of the court Maura another just try my someone else and best clerks, testified: me. my job right to do so it wasn’t number of times And from the words, what, If can if put into been in Lokuta’s you’ve in the anything, atmosphere was the courtroom, oppor- had an courtroom? tunity how she conducts observe herself on the bench? tense, very Very very just tense- — Absolutely. Everybody atmosphere. filled in, just Q. And based on observations and there was ten- walked sit, Judge Lokuta from the times that And and then sion. volume, tone, you’ve courtroom, been her what was the is it like manner working courtroom? which Lokuta squeaking
chastised about chair? Well, I compare it the movie the Wizard of Oz. You never know Oh, rude, really really rude. you’re get
whether *31 just in her good And the look face was judge you’re going get just looking you ready the down at judge. wicked to— just so condescendingly, makes Q. you explain And can that? so scared and so nervous. Well,
A. on given day the any meaning Q. Can you tell the about Court change and demeanor in sec- will a specific hap- other incidents reason, for slightest ond the could pened in while papers front rustling Judge Lokuta’s courtroom? attorneys, the back of someone Oh, absolutely. A. whispering the courtroom to the Q. can, person, Okay.
other chair And if my squeaking Please do. put which I can’t help. a time frame on them. Q. Did involving have an incident
your chair? Well, clerk, A. since I’ve a court been ongoing. this is Specific A. instance Absolutely. witness, swearing I in a told to Q. Can you tell the Court about that. witness, swear inup the stood the you can, And if aput period time on oath, judge middle of the the start- that to the best of recollection. ed talking attorney. over me say
A. I’d approximately year about a I I I stopped and stood waited. ago, and a half something like that. quite And it went for some time. Q. 2005 or'06? And I standing. remained I was Correct, A. yes. told to sit down and so I can move Q. And happened? what see this And attorney. just— Well, A. squeaked shaking. the chair You just and—at start I’ve been in slightest movement, every there in PFA where I court have—
time I up stood to hand the MR. we SINATRA: Can have a time an exhibit from it attorney, first incident?
would a make noise. And I was I say year A. would about and a year, chastised for that. half, something that. like Q. Well, what Lokuta— you. MR. SINATRA: Thank Cusick, A. Ms. you going are to apolo- Go JUDGE SPRAGUE: ahead. gize. And I was taken aback. A. I’ve been in PFA court I where I supposed didn’t know I was witnesses, have sworn apologize for reason. I a then the taken judge has sidebar couldn’t help but— attorneys to speak with the What did do? say then And I will continue. will I I apologized. A. myself, parties you’ve already said been And me, me, no,
I if don’t heard anybody they’ve know sworn. told not, have, think the chair WD-40. or if needs swear them Absolutely. the woman again. So I did swear gentle- again. then was you tell the Court— Q. Could I better man’s turn. decided Absolutely. again, him too. And was swear time frame put if possible, —and already he had yelled at because on that. sworn, things of that nature. been oh, about, year Okay. say involving you there incident Was an day I ago the of the court or so end cough drop? and a was— I had a horrible cold Absolutely. and I came to cough, and a horrible very short-
work because we were standing end of up A. was And it was handed. week with my belong- day to retrieve all court *32 coughing I se- Judge Lokuta. was I the from the bench. have ings lozenge I did a in verely. put And I everything. sheets and dispo write try the my suppress mouth to and starting up. I to stand I was was witness, in cough. I the and swore something poked because startled mouth, my in cough drop I had the just And I turned me in the back. helping. but it like—And it was I was around. files, me if I a the judge couple judge And the asked had and two—a said, apologized clerk, clerk, and I and back problem, said, take these Honor, I a I sorry, Your but have which you you I’m leave with when cold, well, you do in what have fine. severe no with. That’s problem said, get it lozenge, I that I felt your mouth. But I was startled out, get your it out of mouth. my in back. jabbing this there are no
And there is a rule tone, vol- Q. And was Lokuta’s what in candy the drinking or kind ume, manner when she and if I in put But I felt this courtroom. this? suppress cough the
my mouth the I witness. After be able swear agitated, incident particular A. On that witness, kept cough- I the still swore clerk, clerk, take these agitated, from the myself so I excused ing, go. 1149- with when I out into the hall- courtroom. walked 56). stop coughing jag. way trying cough on the cross-examination Cusick’s Your I break believe was as follows: drop incident was myself Honor asked me relieve Now, pro- to re- to the clear person go over there let’s back get Q. another thing. It is judge cough drop I to the we explained me. tocol lieve protocol every- judge’s court items swamped, there was one where, chew- everybody busy. people She that she doesn’t want was, candy gum coming boss Jill or there ing asked me where Moran, mouth, cor- cough drops Jill Es- in their Moran. She wanted replace in and me. quire to come rect? inci- special But this was a
A. Correct. helping mat- thought I was that dent. there other incidents Q. And were myself and helping ters and you worked you observed when sup- trying proceedings court Judge Lokuta? Moran, Prothonotary, Jill about press my cough point to the where testified experience appearing Respon- before judge anyone left so that attorney: dent as an else that courtroom could hear and I not be witness you tell the about from Can Court disrupting by coughing. court being your personal observations myself took out of situation Lokuta’s courtroom how hallway respect. into the out of
went conduct herself does Lokuta So left courtroom. Were on the bench? proceedings ongoing the court still when left? Well, appearing judge before the
A. Yes. attorney to the time prior an know your And as I understand it from always very of course I nervous testimony, only response from fairly which think was out of walked you didn’t typical because know court say was to boss expect. real- person replace should have another ly go of the theme. To into kind you, correct? courtroom judge’s never go She asked me I should over to personality type knew what *33 prothonotary’s get office an- day. would have that other court clerk. Q. you were ill? Q. you type What do mean what it, very nasty And she was about personality she have that very admonishing me. day? just type A. You didn’t know what
Q. your I heard testimony on direct day. mood she would be in that If examination, madame, but I have you she would—Sometimes felt like right you to ask questions, these you target your had a back and you and want to ask this— just looking yell that she was to at you really you or to berate and em- you your barrass front of col- Q. When walked out of the court- leagues. And so never knew. room proceedings while the just very was cautious on, going judge’s only response —You’re going in because didn’t know say you, was to need another we expect. what clerk, your have boss send in anoth- clerk,
er correct? been in her courtroom I’ve where A. No. She told me attorneys ap- she wanted another she has demanded from there,
court clerk over and I ex- that pearing provide before her plained there no attorney was one else their identification number anything send over. her before she’ll hear from Court week was very busy. All court attorneys our clerks them. And seen I’ve judges. scrambling attorney were with other Then identification get Moran, told to Jill Esquire trying provide was numbers and me, attorneys over there to relieve where’s who had been before your that. requesting boss. She wanted know her before but I’ve (N.T. 1174-76). very, very nastily. heard at from click- yelling people her ing pens writing loudly not, their or too you’re hearing give or the witness it, that she could hear from talking. courtesy finishing response
just try like I your right to maintain your question to finish without inter- JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. You ruption. proceed, can and to the extent can it, place please times on do so. MR. SINATRA: Thank you, Your Honor. I kind of did like she Sure, Your Honor. And I can tell saying. you that this —the last time was judge year, before the was this this BY MR. SINATRA: year, calendar per- so within Had finished answer? haps the last six months so. And just I had. And I believe said I consistent, mean, it’s always— it’s finishing saying it’s know, You changed. that has never not appropriate It’s not a behavior. yell attorneys To hear her when matter I personally of whether you’re stop in there or to hear her problem it. It’s disre- proceedings or leave the bench and spectful and inappropriate behavior. going know when she was to be part, laughing Which or the bench, back on the to hear her talking? laughing and talking behind the closed doors of the chambers and A. Actually the fact that the will really not know what on. you’ll leave the bench and have no (N.T. 1192-95). back, idea come if at will all. On cross-examination on point, Ms. laughing inappropri- So the is not
Moran asked: ate? was, Q. My question do recall tes-
tifying problems that one of the that A. It inappropriate, No. is Mr. Sinatra. you is that judge have when the I don’t I know how much clearer adjourns from time to time can be. It’s a matter of respect you’ve (N.T. 1209-11). courtroom her laugh- heard both sides. ing? problem you, That’s a for cor- Ms. Moran questioned further re- rect? garding Respondent’s treatment of attor- me, A. problem It’s not a for Mr. Sina- neys her courtroom: tra. It’s not— What, if anything, you observe Q- Okay. precipitating as the reasоn for her
A. —appropriate— yelling attorneys? go Then on to other— let’s yelling things A. I’ve heard from as Sinatra, Mr. JUDGE SPRAGUE: handing piece pa- an exhibit or please let the witness finish her an- per, handing appro- not it to the you go your swer before on to next priate person, handing not it question. perhaps perhaps the clerk or Well, MR. SINATRA: her answer stenographer. you And would not was it’s not a for her. problem person you sup- know which were posed JUDGE SPRAGUE: She still to hand it to. heard I’ve sir, talking, interrupted reprimanding attorneys then for speaking quickly, speaking her. And whether like what too too slowly, speaking softly. Special they too me for And told just not you please it’s can raise Judge Lokuta’s—for matter voice, can please repeat being Judge that was heard before screaming. that. is—It’s Lokuta because the court clerks JUDGE found SPRAGUE: Can illus- that— trate? it’s you speaking, know Not SPRAGUE: because. JUDGE us, but for we need to have examples for You were told the identification
if you’re able to so. do special judge is Is Lokuta. of, Counselor, It’s terms need that correct? to speak slowly, more this is ridicu- Yes, Your Honor. lous, I can’t go- take notes. You’re Proceed, JUDGE SPRAGUE: Coun- ing too fast. Don’t that hand exhib- sel. her, it to hand it to person. Q. And was the be- difference
You should know better. Just it’s special scheduling tween this J that tone of voice. scheduling? other mean, transcripts just read practice the course of A. The generally court clerks would
can convey never tone voice agree among themselves as to what used. It is a demeaning, ber- hearing they go- or what trial ating, angry tone voice. IAnd ing day, togo they for the possibly justice. can’t it do It’s seniority. would do in order of personality. not my But that’s how I The most person seniority (N.T. 1195-96). would describe that. would choose where wanted to Ms. Moran also her expe- testified about go. mostly are females
rience prothonotary in assigning court who as court clerks in our serve Respondent’s clerks to courtroom: office. do assign How clerks various kept The list that for courtrooms in the system? court something Lokuta’s courtroom was Well, took office one person designated noticed that there was a schedule of one week serve as the clerk court clerks kept that was one of because the most otherwise senior *35 employees the other in the office. opt employee always would to be not they basically And had a schedule to they her clerk. So had make sure judges for all of the in the court- fair to be that someone would take a house, they and a separate then had judge rotation the for one with week. they schedule that special called particular And did follow that judge. And I didn’t understand over practice pro- when took as that what was when I took office. thonotary? IAnd asked right away, someone
said, well, mean, what does this over, I told them When took special judge special what does or J it to appropriate didn’t think mean, said, well, they that’s distinguish judges the or between special judge— among judges the didn’t like MR. I’m to going object SINATRA: designation designating the hearsay to the declaration. judge. And special someone as they way JUDGE no other SPRAGUE: Overruled. said there was your clerks in her court- to do it. culties with they agree that could the on They agreed change name room? the list to rotation court which is office, I first took Originally when among it. But they now call speak, usually I mean we via would themselves, they that said that was judge telephone. The would call had to it. they how do identify me. She’d that she was on object I’m MR. SINATRA: phone Usually secretary the her — hearsay. to the say would call and the clerk SPRAGUE: Overruled. JUDGE me. The speak judge wanted just procedure describing She’s phone. on the judge get would up.
that was set identify was in room She’d who usually were with her. There —It Moran, prothonotary Lu- Ms. usually and someone in County, your zerne administra- phone was on the on else who what, any, problems capacity tive if and it be me speakerphone, would experience dealing office other end of the phone. Judge with Lokuta’s courtroom? request would And she —sometimes Well, ways it in a lot difficult request request something, cer- especially when it came to court tain clerk be returned because, again, if have a clerks assignment or a certain courtroom really where the clerks situation beginning And in the that’s made. judge’s certain go don’t want to to a how communicated. And we would we courtroom, it it does make difficult try to we could. accommodate best assigned is if one of them to be very staffed court We were short with Judge for a front Lokuta week it. clerks, try we to do And but would go if gets sick or wants to the line of beginning no on vacation and one else wants communication. position. they take that And would themselves, up bartering among years It’s end deteriorated over well, office, if I’ll two today, say I’m out take I’d I’ve been now turns next time only Lokuta we have communication it. up to make memos. through extremely it made diffi- it deteriorated, it’s you say And when long they cult. We never knew how why it has deteriorated? there be over only only really could —could over to Lokuta’s court- sent guess why has deteriorated.... didn’t know—I didn’t room. We (N.T. 1186-98). if out of the they’d know be thrown *36 few happened And that a courtroom. Cronin, an dis- Ingrid who was assistant that the were sent back times clerks County from attorney Luzerne trict request a office and there was Respon- that 1992 to testified another clerk to be sent over.... for was in hearing criminal cases she dent was (N.T. “once a at least”
her courtroom week 1034). what it like She was asked Q. your prothonotary, capacity In as courtroom, she an- working in her you to communicate have been able diffi- swered: Judge any Lokuta about with
A. Specifically adjustments never treated I could to whatever in way
me that I considered to be make people’s lives a little easier if problem personally. certainly I could. you can tell proceed- the court Q. anything you Was there unusual did ings out, long were often and drawn handling assignment to Judge recesses, that there many were Lokuta’s courtroom? you often had to long wait a time A. I can tell the that the Court attor- for things get underway. There neys in the office would have consid- Many
was an element of tension. ered the short straw to Judge draw people felt— Lokuta. It took longer any- than
body else. There was a sense of A. I observed people expressing anxi- anxiety. Nobody go. wanted to
ety (N.T. 1038-39). while either performing their waiting duties or for their turn. Sharkey, William court administrator of County
Luzerne for years, the last ten Q. What was different Judge about Lo- testified about the difficulties his office had
kuta’s courtroom your from other dealings its Respondent: with assignments? Q. long How have been certified in position? A. No other courtroom had that under- A. Ten years, going on eleven. lying sense of tension. I had no Q. your part position, as other —Assistant DAs never came your are duties? me on regular basis about A. supervision Overall of the entire anybody say else put don’t me in system. Court front of that person, it makes me Q. And that entails what? anxious, it makes me — .... Criminal, civil, domestic. And I 1035-41). oversight have over our Domestic Ms. responsibilities Cronin’s as an as- Relations, Adult Probation and Ju-
sistant attorney district making included venile Probation. assignments of the assistant district attor- Q. part position, And as of that dо neys to courtrooms and Board in- counsel judicial interact other cham- with quired: bers? Q. Right. And particu- have a Everyday. protocol lar Lokuta’s necessary Is that a part of courtroom? function? A. Absolutely. particular I had no protocol for as- signing people specific to a judge. serving Since have been Certainly if a conflict came or if Administrator, Court have had somebody tell me that interaction Lokuta’s of- very somebody anxious or if fice? particular had a why they reason Yes, I have. couldn’t do something pick- such as ing up a child a medical appoint- kind of interaction What *37 ment, we would—I would make had? complaints made Q. Sharkey, Mr. were point, At Originally good.
A. some you by your staff? They became things changed. confrontational. somewhat A. Yes.
Q. What caused that? made those aware to Presi- Q. And Judge?
dent to have a just always A. She seemed office, my girls
problem with A. Yes did. my office. that, a was there Q. As a result matters were
change made how Ad- Q. your capacity And in as Court by Judge Lokuta con- scheduled ministrator, any prob- did cerning her Court? Judge Lokuta?
lems with (N.T. 531-38). A. Yes. Yes, every time— Murtha-Cowley an attor- Virginia was public in the defender’s
ney who worked prob- those Q. you explain Could February 2007. Mrs. office from 1987 to lems were? that had a Murtha-Cowley testified relationship with the Re-
friendly, social late year a little over a spondent for It that time we did seemed during peri- 1990s. She testified Judge Lokuta had a scheduling, Respon- serving Boris od one Beth problem scheduling. with our She that the also had dent’s clerk and two law only Judge we had in the relationship which soured personal a type problem with. (N.T. 992). After late 1990s. Q. you say with the problems When “split professional their and Beth Boris specifically do scheduling, what (N.T. 1015) personal relationship” you give example? mean? an Can that: Murtha-Cowley Mrs. testified anything did was seemed we party invited to a I went—I was wrong. home, a Beth Boris’s Christmas you speak Did with Lokuta to that Christmas party. went problems? personally about those day literally the next party. relationship I had with A. No. I know changed. And how these you speak with about day Who that the before— this is Judge Lokuta?
problems with party before I to this day
A. The went Judge. A. The President she had talking about how she was my daughter. bought present a for speak prompted you What Judge? the President Who is the she? SPRAGUE: JUDGE talking judge.
A. The bought present about how she had basis, daily got A. Just on my daughter for Christmas. go I would back point where there and then party, to the went office, sometimes my girls just no contact. reduced to tears. *38 9:00, 9:30, And guar- what is—-What it like for 10:00. There no was
you working in Judge get Lokuta’s I antee that would out there at know, courtroom after time period any this it could be well into —You you mentioned this Christmas the afternoon. party? changed. I Sentences And can’t Objection. MR. SINATRA: give you specific a But my— case.
JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. my changed. Attitudes towards clients A. very, very It became difficult for MR. I’m going object SINATRA: My My me. fear was— — to attitudes towards her clients
changed. JUDGE SPRAGUE: I take it from JUDGE SPRAGUE: I don’t know what the saying witness is that this is you you your what mean when said what commenced and occurred after changed. attitude having been at that that she party No, attitude, A. judge’s atti- spoke about. She quite pin can’t tude. except say time she believes it was Well, you JUDGE SPRAGUE: sometime in the late 1990s. That’s to be Even if specific. you can’t re- when as result of change these case, a specific give member examples things occurred. Is that correct? you’re talking what about. When A. That’s correct. you changed, said sentences what did JUDGE SPRAGUE: Proceed. you mean that? Well, I having went from my case Well, sentences seemed harsher to having my called first to case called me after that. Her manner with last. my clients—She loved—loves Q. And that mean would for use, know, words, big and that in terms of daily work? would be more evident so that I Well, very that made it difficult would kind of have to translate for us to public schedule defend- average public defender client er’s office because there were four what she meant. employees full-time or eight Her distaste for me obvious in judges nine plus magis- at that time the fact that if there was one incident trates, magistrates had we where I had to turn around to— to cover. Counsel tables are here. We would ifSo we would look at our schedule stand kind of there. had had, know, and I would see that I and, my turn look around and file PFA, in theory one should be out know, get something. don’t re- that court in no than longer an hour what exactly doing. member I was assigned and be able to then be else- turning And I chastised for my where. But that then —That back on courtroom which— changed. guarantee So could no longer put time Can frame my supervisor either incident? colleagues other that I would be avail- day. mean, party. able for the PFA after say whole I would at, know, know, maybe early court started You that it was *39 over, of very portion she That the case specifically, said don’t turn was I jurist. back on this and sat down. tone, manner, Q. What was from Judge And Lokuta the bench physical bearing when she said that said, ac- Attorney Murtha —she never you? to name, knowledged my marriage but nor that’s neither here there —Attor- Her tone was harsh. Her manner Murtha, was, you sitting are know, ney why forward you leaning said, well, my aspect I of the down. pointing her finger. was chastis- You this ing. case sit down when over. you sit So I jurist tells down. Q. Her volume? up. stood oh, Yeah, loud. know, you everyone People And you intending to be disre- — Were you. looking at And I stood are spectful? of that case was there. And course Traditionally public A. No. With — called, next case and I over. The appearances defender in court we quite sure to do. I was wasn’t don’t have one case. We have a I di- given very thought specific a cases. And multitude of we’re that I not to sit until rective down trying gather kind of our files. told I re- she me sit down. So say happens And I con- standing. mained turn, stantly that have to look we know, know, you then realized she through papers, our I case standing that was into next onto the next or the next move case me, why are stand- So and chastised certainly issue or I whatever. well, you me to stand. I ing, told disrespect- attempting was not mean, do, quite know what didn’t ful. said, well, now point
at which ridiculous, being I sat you’re just specific Are there other instances down. Court, you can relate to the if And I take JUDGE SPRAGUE: them, put can a time frame on open court? this was said so, please Lokuta’s do about post of treatment Christ- know, court, Yes, you yes, open party? mas clients, everyone. mean say maybe A. would it was about Did this kind SPRAGUE: JUDGE year later. happen frequently? conduct A. Yes. later, say year are When giving You’re an JUDGE SPRAGUE: 2001? talking saying that illustration. You’re say early yes. I would just one of—that’s illustrative are into court. PFAs divided things. the kind of aspect and the both the criminal (N.T. 993-1002). A. Correct. public civil From the de- aspect. office, con only repre- Respondent’s We find fender’s we would in the set out aspect testimony of duct described sent them the criminal convincing represented had an above is clear and evidence charge. of: aspect. on the criminal violation individual 3A.(3) 8A.(3) of the Code imposed by dard Canon of the of Judicial
1.Canon Code Conduct. 1; Judicial charged in Count Conduct 18(d)(1) V, Pennsyl- §
2. Article it useful to consider the words We find Constitution for the conduct is vania to describe these witnesses used *40 office brings judicial such that Lokuta’s attitude and demeanor towards in disrepute charged into as Count in she came into contact those with whom everyday of the business of her the course 2; Here are some of them: judicial office. 18(d)(1) V, Pennsyl- § 3. Article of the Krohn) (N.T. venom 152 for the conduct is vania Constitution Krohn) (N.T. 154 combative, irrational ad- prejudices proper such (N.T. Krohn) hostile 160 (N.T. Kostelaba) agitated, in face 199 justice charged ministration of as in (N.T. Kostelaba) agitated 204 and loud very (N.T. Kostelaba) 6; and aggressive, Count 213 rash (N.T. Coll) 562 curt, brusque, sharp 3B.(1) 4. of Judicial Canon Code (N.T. Coll) 600 witch, diabolical Rachilla) (N.T. loud 647 curt, Conduct.5 (N.T. Sallemi) demeaning, demanding 716 (N.T. Sallemi) harsh 719 very findings We will discuss these in the Tratthen) (N.T. and 763 short curt they order are listed above. (N.T. Wasiluk) ranting, raving, chastising 780 for no reason attorneys 3A.(3) 1. provides: Canon at all (N.T. Wasiluk) demeaning, good 789 loud, Judges patient, dignified, should be and (N.T. Violi) condescending 828 (N.T. Violi) curt 835 witnesses, litigants, jurors, courteous to (N.T. Violi) arrogant 836 lawyers, and others with whom deal (N.T. Violi) condescending, curt 863 Torres) (N.T. 917, 931 disrespectful capacity, their official re- and should (N.T. Torres) me another area of 917 shoo quire lawyers, similar conduct of and of the courtroom (N.T. Torres) intimidating 931, 934, 939 staff, officials, their court and others (N.T. Murtha-Cowley) loud 998 harsh, (N.T. 6 Murtha-Cowley) subject to their and control. direction vindictive 1003 unapproachable, (N.T. Cronin) [treated 1044 horrendous The testimony set out in the Discussion officer as a probation whipping boy] clearly so above establishes such astonish- (N.T. Cronin) angry, and 1045 intense [over a 3A.(3) accusatory ing, recurrent violations of Canon matter] minor that anything might say we about it would Cusick) (N.T rude 1151 rude, really (N.T. Cusick) 1161 discourtesies rudeness superfluous. excerpts The recited (N.T. Cusick) 1175 very nasty provide only sample above a of the testi- (N.T. Sammon) tense, abrasive, cruel, 1239 loud, angry witness, mony after men witness (N.T. Sammon) things terrible, cruel-based 1246 women, (N.T. Sammon) employed by Respondent, some abrasive, cruel 1248 loud, (N.T. Sammon) 1252 abrasive, face, very employed jobs some various other volatile —unkind very Sammon) (N.T. courthouse, elsewhere, abrasive, employed out of 1259 some de- control, out cruel, completely incident, scribing occurring incident after of proportion (N.T. Sammon) brutal 1262 continually, repeatedly unpredictably, (N.T. Youngclaus) 1329 oppressive inescapable having any none high relation to the stan- (N.T. demeaning Youngclaus) 1330 very Complaint charge compared In its the Board did not became after — (N.T. violation of this Canon. disaffected with each. 1003 Murtha- Violi). Cowley; N.T. 800-03 See also the quality of Re- 6. We see this as characteristic (Exhibit testimony R- of Rebecca Sammon spondent’s up, her make as characteristic of 1464, 33-34), (N.T. pp. Weber Susan rebuffs, perceived slights reaction to and dis- (N.T. 628-31), 1467-68), Cynthia Rachilla agreements. Overt demonstrations 934-48, R-545, (N.T. pp. Anna Torres Exhibit are in her treatment of characteristic seen 211-13). 3-5), (N.T. Michael Kostelaba attorneys Murtha-Cowley and before— Violi 1032 (N.T. Youngclaus) unkind 1341
very
do,
Board can
The best
available.
(N.T.
Youngclaus)
demeaning,
edge,
1342
over the
therefore,
to de-
is to ask the witnesses
angry
(N.T.
Moyer)
1367
mean,
conde-
very
very
demeanor,
her tone
Respondent’s
scribe
scending, nasty
(N.T.
Moyer)
voice,
man-
appearance, whether her
1372
mean,
conde-
very
very
scending,
frantic,
very
or
seemly
unseemly,
decorous
ner was
dark, evil
Weber)
(N.T.
belittling,
demeaning,
1468
indecorous, civil or uncivil.
intimidating
(N.T.
Weber)
1473
abuse was so intense and
by those
adjectives
The choice of
made
relentless and persistent
questions
to those
(N.T.
Weber)
responding
witnesses
condescending,
1478
extremely
sarcastic
of a
behavior
paint
picture
whose
Weber)
(N.T.
agitated,
loud,
very
very
demeaning
to standards of
entirely antithetical
very
Weber)
cruel
decency
as to the stan-
common
as well
*41
Thus,
to our conclusion that
we come
out in the Code of Judicial Con-
dards set
constitutes a viola-
Respondent’s conduct
qualifies
In
as
duct.
our view
behavior
3A.(3)
of Judicial
tion of
of the Code
Canon
scandalous;
brings
that
certainly
is such
not come to this conclu-
do
Conduct. We
disrepute
into
judicial
the
office
not come
judges
sion
that all
do
unmindful
above,
hold that
the
3. As noted
we
of
to their office
the same allotment
with
in
above
testimony set out
the Discussion
threshold
equanimity
have a lower
—some
adminis-
prejudices
proper
the
is such
others; but,
of intolerance than
whatever
justice.
tration of
in the
idiosyncratic predispositions,
their
there is no
judicial
conduct of their
duties
question
the
This
has addressed
Court
discourtesy.
place for
any
required to establish
of what is
that prejudices
conduct is such
particular
above,
hold that
the
2. As noted
we
justice.
administration of
proper
the
brings
judi-
the
same
is such that
conduct
disrepute.
into
cial office
(Pa.Ct.
Smith,
In In
her courtroom half.9 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005), and re In Berkhim (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc. er, A.2d 597-98 con- imagine
It is hard to conduct more 2005), the on one rule and Board’s focus con- with that defined gruent Smith finding violation of another prejudices which Court’s stituting conduct justice; certainly con proper underlying administration of prejudicial because Respondent’s conduct the effect “ha[d] has Respondent the same and duct is obstructing interfering system- or with the that was from been advised of what operation normal functions of the atic proceedings. beginning these And, consequently, court.” affected “ha[s] proper administration of the courts.” IN D. CHAMBERS CONDUCT Id. BB.(l)
4.
of the Code of Judicial
Canon
Findings of Fact
Conduct,
provides:
in pertinent part,
undig-
impatient,
34.
Judges
diligently discharge their
should
to her staff with
nified and discourteous
responsibilities, maintain
administrative
official capacity,
she dealt
her
whom
competence
judicial
ad-
professional
interns,
clerks,
legal
tip-
including law
ministration,
perform-
facilitate
staffs, and secretaries.
responsibili-
ance
the administrative
judges
ties
other
court
officials
Respondent’s
conduct created
added).
(emphasis
in her
atmosphere
tense and stressful
The
referred to above estab-
evidence
negative
effect
and had serious
chambers
a con-
lishes
of this Canon—on
violation
ability
on the
of members of
staff
*43
described, far
tinuing
The conduct
basis.
perform their duties.
properly
the
of other
facilitating
judges
from
work
officials,
the
effect.
opposite
and court
had
and
Respondent
herself
36.
isolated
help along,
make less
“Facilitate” means
depart-
other court
her office from the
difficult,
the
expedite;
conduct described ments,
including
prothonotary,
the
the
hindered,
it
opposite:
ob-
accomplished the
presi-
as well as the
court administrator
difficult the ad-
and made more
structed
County.
In deal-
Luzerne
judges
dent
responsibilities
of other
ministrative
departments and the
ing
the court
with
officials, particularly
judges and court
Respondent was ever-
president
judges,
the
working
those
in her courtroom and
Communi-
aggrieved and confrontational.
pro-
the
and
offices of
court administrator
and
other
her office
cations between
thonotary
judge.
and of the president
Respon-
departments
president judges
and
had
aware that
We are
only by
memo-
permit
dent
written
would
a violation of
charged
not
Canon
been
present.
or if a “witness” was
randum
3B(1).
however,
Any suggestion,
that the events related
We find
may derogate Respondent’s right
to due
rec-
testimony
in this
witnesses
for,
Supreme
does not hold
process
which
the Discussion
reproduced
ord
Glancey,
in In the Matter
Court held
in the testi-
as described
occurred
(1988)
follows
276,
in In
Discussion A. incident specific This occurred Penn Place after the had re- We set samples down here located there. testimony leads us to make Findings which Q. of Fact Nos. 3A-36. Where Penn Place? In her chambers. Mecadon,
Girard Respondent’s law clerk January from April 2002 to
asked: Q. many people How were—I’m Q. And can tell the Court how asking you can’t remember the —if Lokuta treated as an attorneys, names of the but I’m ask- employee? ing you many attorneys how were Well, I mean it gauge was hard to it there? because it was like—it kind of A. There would have been at least the Jekyll Hyde like a type situa- plaintiffs attorney, defense attor- Sometimes, you know, tion. it ney, myself, the Judge, possibly Mr. fíne,
would be and other times it Krohn.... just would be—it would be like a blow-up right get-go from the de- coming meeting So are in for a pending day. on the in chambers showing are them in? ... basically She was critical of me A. Yes. because, you know, either I did precisely happens? And what open the door or I open didn’t door, I can’t remember what it was
now. said, A. Like I it depend day. day I mean one BY MR. had PUSKAS: —we row, days these for in a several specifically Do remember day supposed the one the door was she would have said? to be closed and the other I had day Well, said, like basically would be open. opened, it when was supposed to do know *44 it, got then I went to close —I that, or you this to do didn’t do that. got yelled then I at it closing be, know, you Sometimes it would if day which the before was how she mood, she was in a bad might she it, so I figure wanted couldn’t out Sonny call me Boy something or then, you what she wanted. And just like that something or to sound know, just me she would criticize degrading more like as if I wasn’t openly in front of the other attor- ... qualified neys. JUDGE SPRAGUE: When she said Mecadon, you Mr. had testified yelled you, you at criticized she about an incident of opening attorneys, of the other can you front you door and mentioned that attor- tell she said and she us what what neys you are there. Can describe you in yelling said and the manner? you precise the—I want to be about
it, the this circumstances which
happened? So, basically, happen A. is what would place? Where did it take if I did— Did at times it SPRAGUE: she Relate what JUDGE
JUDGE SPRAGUE: say you incompetent? were that she said and the circumstances manner and tone. and the Have say, Judge, A. that she—when would done that? me I could have she asked how exam, I take passed the bar would yesterday. A. I told You being incompetent. called Today closed the door. closed Now, by doing door. what did things SPRAGUE: Did these JUDGE I’m at be- yesterday, getting yelled during period? the three-month occur doing thing, I’m but cause the same Yes, sir. yet oppo- me to do the wanted Continue, SPRAGUE: Coun- JUDGE thing, trying site and I’m to do what sel. previous day, I had done the but BY MR. PUSKAS: getting yelled I’m at for the door being or the door being opened tone, volume, and Q. What manner closed. about her when Judge Lokuta have making these comments she was other in the room people There is you? this, listening hearing going being open
about the door when it direct, and it Very loud and day should have been closed when this, like I told to do this is it me to before was what she wanted do, you supposed do. way it the I wanted didn’t do very like always do. It was —it you said JUDGE SPRAGUE: When thing if it a didn’t matter was trivial you, that she was critical of what do very thing to the important or a through mean? me Walk to al- Judge. always She seemed generally. more intensity in very high a ways have voice, it was her tone of whatever Well, do she would—when didn’t critical explaining or that she do, basically, what she wanted me to about. incompetent I would be called ac- frequently type did this Q. How Sonny or like a name like stupid there tivity you worked occur while experienced Boy like wasn’t period? the three-month during enough to work for her. That’s Well, if really question it wasn’t that— kind of comments going good to be in a Would she call JUDGE SPRAGUE: more of mood or not. you stupid? long of how question *45 A. At I she asked me point one believe something Judge take the before passed I the bar
how could have be in a she would happened where exam. critical of and become bad mood whoever was there. question The JUDGE SPRAGUE: stupid. In you used the word was you stu- up, it did she call
following question The is SPRAGUE: JUDGE pid? Judge Did Loku- simple question. a anything treatment of hap- ta’s There were times Yes. you leaving? do with pened. it definitely arguments
A. Yes. I mean of these exacerbat- ner between situation, Judge ed I and and couldn’t seem Lokuta Maureen Gusha- I to—no matter what to do to nas? tried her,
please I couldn’t seem to make A. The tone was—I mean her volume happy, her starting and it was always escalated. She level practice, affect I own and need- would— get ed to out it just because was JUDGE SPRAGUE: Who her?
getting to be overwhelming. Judge I’m sorry. When the would BY MR. PUSKAS: argue, it start out with —she would Mecadon, say something Q. Mr. would like she mentioned in would just next testimony word would automat- that Maureen Gu- —the louder, ically things get shanas and would Lokuta would ar- — intense, gue? just more nastier it on. build-up, went It was like a A. Uh-huh. just it would be like automatic to
Q. You testified believe level, usually the next and Maureen back would down. How of- kind of matched her for vol- volume ten arguments would occur between argued ume if she with her. Judge Lokuta and Maureen Gusha- nas? BY MR. PUSKAS:
ItA. really would be hard to they they count When were arguing, were
every arguments one. There were particular one area of the cham- daily office, in the and Maureen ber or they moving about? tipstaff, so always she was really It didn’t matter. It could
there. Andrea was the second. be—there was no set place where always She was there. awas argue. any- It would be part-time clei’k, always so I wasn’t where. part arguments, but would did this affect the How office? say that at or least three two times It very upsetting. Just if even a week. problem was a with it, just wasn’t involved to have somebody something or or just to hear going on and Court Administration. There was it, part didn’t sit well always problem something. with me. didn’t like having arguments Where would these oc- time, deal with that all the and it cur? very hard to do work when A. Normally it would be chambers always type there was some of tur-
or could be in the antechamber or argument moil on. I—I don’t yell- remember her ever 869-909). ing open court, but, Maureen Miscavage that, Donna testified while you know, I’ve seen her do that to serving aas court clerk she had occasion other attorneys. to witness incidents between tipstaff, Maureen Gushanas BY MR. PUSKAS: she testified as follows: *46 Mecadon, Q. question Q. What, Mr. if or anything, you hear you what can tell Judge the Court about observe and between Lokuta tone, volume, the and the man- Maureen Gushanas? Yes, A. it did. I never—I never A. Justloud voices.
stayed around to hear what frequently? How Q. embarrassing. saying. It was were Objection MR. SINATRA: the little hall You would walk down question. form way, knock on chambers door. JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. mean, screaming And, be they’d I personally say. It’s I—Me A. hard there, a match. I having screaming every day. It wasn’t every it wasn’t right and turn around walk would maybe was, know, one you week. part any I didn’t back out. want then, you know, in a month and didn’t, you know— that. the next month couple weeks or you recognize— And did Q. know, Or, you again. hear it would A. —I didn’t them— want infrequent, hap- like but it it was time. more than one pened —their voices? Q. 1090-92). A. Oh them to yes, yes. didn’t want standing that I was outside think Cusick testified: Maura to them because listening the door any inter- Did hear or observe Q. you interpreted. it be that’s would how and action Lokuta between Q. Why you been tipstaff, would have then Mau- tipstaff her —her that that door at time? reen Gushanas— secretary at A. I believe she was disposition take the sheets back.
A. To time, yes. in her hearing sat in a we When courtroom, you fill would you? disturbing to Q. —that was sheet, hap disposition a out say I would fairly This recent. A. proceedings. pened with year, year so. within get copy of that when she would me me. Let finish first. Q. Pardon be were done. So we would you Oh, sorry. I’m taking copies blue back over her or hear inter- Q. you Did observe pro for her after her chambers Lokuta action between ceedings. you were Gushanas while Maureen is on that cham- kind of door What clerk in court- working as a you have been ber would room— knocking on? Yes, I did. door, a solid wooden A. Awooden knock, would door. And disturbing? you found Q. —that much, open it would Absolutely. bit, just open it a little would tell the Court what you please Can through, papers hand you’d that was— go. But and then would A. Yes. know, would before would—You sometimes, on it period knock a time please put
even —and in there. screaming hear if can? said, And, I wouldn’t even like I was still year ago. I’d about a say go turn around knock. would proceedings courtroom after to the office. back proce- done because now court we’ll dure is miscellaneous more once? occur than Q. And did this *47 I shaken They frightened have several files. could be so what 30. You up literally from 7 cases don’t I out. I heard. walked day know. And at the end ran out.
my job is to take these files back to you recognized And those voices as my office, prothonotary. and Maureen Judge Lokuta Gusha- laying we have on—There’s a What nas? door, by the table chambers’ 157-60). (N.T.1 A. Absolutely. are there that slips paper there Sammon, legal Rebecca intern for Re- match the case the file. number with I of 2002 and up. spondent during And hook them both I look. I the summers my file, name I I’m testified: sign that see taking it I with me. And then leave A .... then five minutes later the about paperwork table for those on the ei- in, judge screaming came and she was ther Maureen or from her whomever like, you at me. And she was look office collect them. tramp, you really like a look—that’s Well, I only was the one in the cut, completely inappropri- low that’s I doing my job. courtroom. was still ate. screaming I And heard from the And, mean, I don’t inappro- I dress judge’s chambers. I heard Maureen priately. not who I am. That’s That’s calling Gushanas the judge— know, inappro- not—You I don’t dress SINATRA: I’m object MR. priately. very I’m aware of I by somebody— to statements made know, And, my wear. mom JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. super usually She conservative. finish, may MR. SINATRA: If I Your makes me when I leave the house look Respondent. Honor.—other than the nun. overdressed for a JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. upset, So I very and I started Proceed. cry. mean, I that’s not related to I observed—I’m sorry. overheard my any- work. That’s related to screaming Maureen Gushanas at I’m thing doing. personal That’s a judge calling her a fucking attack on me I felt— bitch, bastard, fucking if ever I’m going object MR. SINATRA: embarrass me in front of an attor- to— ney, I’ll you. kill JUDGE SPRAGUE: We understand
And then I heard start you. how affected Continue with back, yelling frightened and I too the next instance. in—out of come chambers, me, court see and know I’d BY MR. PUSKAS: overheard them. I ran out of there. that, on to can you Before I move frightened. my purse too I left for the record describe tone and there, files, my left the left work of Judge volume and manner Loku- it, stayed away ap- middle of saying you? ta when she was hour until I proximately a half an face, composed myself Very abrasive, my very went back in. vol- did, work, atile, know, when I finished demonstrative abrasive, know, my purse. any- and, you not hear took actions thing cruel, point in time. But unkind. *48 SPRAGUE: you any Can relate to the Court JUDGE Overruled. happened
other dur- incidents Proceed. ing that summer? know, was, you yelling A. And she and feet,
stomping her and A. There was another incident where— top lungs, the screamed at her
She and Maureen Gushanas would just sleeping I’m not because lot fight a and I—There was one anymore, you Judge. And I was day particular she had Mau- where by aback that. I completely taken doing copying. reen some Maureen anything had no like that idea was copier, at the I don’t was and know know, going Maybe on. I—You I— copying Maureen what was because Duryea, I’m I’m from Penn- naive. judge the had instructed Maureen sylvania, I pick small town. didn’t it copy herself. And Maureen on like that. I up anything knew visibly it up- whatever was she was they just hung thought out a lot. by judge kept it. And buzz- set they just, So I were friends. was screaming her and out to ing her know, And, you just whoa. was, her, you yelling and it out completely freaked that. know, very a tense environment and And, you know, what do very tense atmosphere. a their life is personal their own own And, you know, I like Maureen. business, but when affects upset. And it didn’t want see ability— know, was, really a it was bad object I’m MR. SINATRA: And, know, this kept situation. to the— buzzing back and forth going with Just JUDGE SPRAGUE: stick And it ringing. and the intercom judge occurred. What probably just constant. It over a or say to— respond half period of a an hour. apparently And then Maureen had just just -They kept A. And she — time, up request a typed vacation screaming back and forth at each if judge and she asked the she could other. week, and like vacation for a MR. BY PUSKAS: it. Maureen
judge denied came know, out, really upset really, any- specifically Do remember just little bit and stomping kind of thing judge said? of them very upset. And two screaming lots of really, just A. Not screamed back and forth bickered I know that she back and forth. awhile, and back and forth for then vacation, and I denied the know all of sudden screamed Maureen know, that it there was—You were really loud— insults and forth. So flying back object going to MR. SINATRA: I’m one incident. And then auditory to the declarations. there was one more. This is JUDGE SPRAGUE: you? presence tell the Court about my- Can presence
A. Yes. was Weber, other while self, incidents judge, Susan working Youngclaus. there? Selyne There one more that think boy tle somewhere another little really, was—that really up- bothered child. was mortified and *49 me. set. mean,
I I lost cool. I did start crying. being spoken I’m not used A. Again, this is in the summer of way. to, you to that I’m not used in, I had come morn- know, dealing people like and ing, Susan probably typing was (N.T. 1251-60). that.... something. Maureen was judge’s chamber. And I answered Rebecca Sammon further testified. phone. it somebody And was Q. working What it like for was poison control, they from and said Lokuta? just
we had a received call from this It tense at was times. She wasn’t number a about child who swal- very there often. I don’t know—I lowed bleach.... that know she has some health
problems, I so wasn’t aware of quick, you know, So I knocked on it whether was sick time. Or at judge’s chamber and kind of point that I had never for worked know, just walk—You I knocked before, so I judge another wasn’t quick in, and said, walked I or aware whether not that was Judge, poison there’s a call from procedure protocol or for judge a control, here, they Daniel said a know, they’re not, you seated child little swallowed bleach. And or on the bench whether come like, she screamed at me. She’s it’s days on the off what. I had Honor, you Your disrespect don’t never, you know, worked just like, me. IAnd was I don’t judge before. judge—
think atmosphere But the could be rather all, I First don’t think ais tense when she was there. But it was disrespectful term. I think that most say never directed —I it honestly can judges agree would that the word really directed me never towards judge is not disrespectful.... that year. first
Q. you Monday through And did work Friday? Q. tone, Could describe her vol-
ume, and manner when she was A. Yes. at
screaming you? you just And now stated that it cruel, control, abrasive, A. Out of wasn’t directed at that first just year. out completely of proportion. A. Yes. What effect did that have on at
that moment? What can tell the Court about that? just I completely upset. First upset that she at be very screamed Sometimes she would tense And me. second was upset say and abrasive and would cruel someone would have that little dis- It secretary. was Andrea regard possibility Fogelman little time. had She boy or, know, hurting only himself was there first sum- —She if it even wasn’t Daniel lit- another mer. It was tense. was—She nudge her on to be could Like she would
could be abrasive. She be to Susan. compare mean cruel. She would often secretary to another Andrea mean, And, as far Susan had, Weber, say, Susan secretary a competent could see was know, great how Susan was and it really hard. And would work how horrible Andrea was. error be the smallest would tense. would be a would be There And one minute she’d set her off. bickering lot of and forth. It back something to do one give a directive just a rather tense environment way, and the directive would com- *50 sometimes. with, plied and then a moment later say, this asked she would isn’t what Well, tone, volume, Q. what was the it precisely do when what to was Judge and Lokuta manner which she asked. Andrea? addressed change And her demeanor would abrasive, Loud, angry. A. one she a dime. Like minute would what, Q. any, if circumstances pie, the next minute be as nice and brought that about? cruel, just be cruel she would It anything could be sometimes. person. period, could a colon of a be instead Q. Now, you just mentioned it wrong or be the font or the could that— testimony paper. It could be—It wrong color object I’m MR. SINATRA: anything. It would never would be that aren’t re- the characterizations know, something, you what I sponsive. would consider monumental. SPRAGUE: Overruled. JUDGE BY MR. PUSKAS: What, anything, Q. if did observe Q. nudged Mau- —that Lokuta Judge Lokuta’s treatment about you explain on. Could that? reen during the summer of 2003 other Maureen to— encourage A. She would personnel in her office? kind like when Mau- She would A. She brutal. She treated Susan or say attack Susan reen would than —She was horri- Weber worse nasty inappropriate things ble to that woman. stupidest like she Susan saw, secretary she she of what ever would Q. you give examples And can know, the two of kind of—You yоu observed? them— than what JUDGE SPRAGUE: Other talking You’re JUDGE SPRAGUE: you have said. females, so don’t use about various Okay. would She would —She she. would, you stupid. call her She sorry, I’m sir. know, She would talk down her. I don’t know SPRAGUE: JUDGE say dumbest secre- that she was the talking about. you’re one which tary ever seen. She would— she’d sorry. judge The would Okay. I’m know, You I think would kind she to— encourage Maureen Gushanas both point it she of—-At this them would be the two of Maureen, and kind of When she would back and forth bickering I think to— encourage Maureen say During would would the time worked Susan —Maureen Lokuta, can say you’re like tell this something to Susan secretary working what it like the dumbest I’ve ever Court seen, her office? judge nothing do it,
stop more or she would less in. The join two—The good days, A. There and there were Maureen would kind double team days. bad were don’t if Susan. And was—I know BY MR. PUSKAS: an conflict there was external be- them? explain Can them or— tween days
A. There don’t were know —I pervious what the has heard Court BY MR. PUSKAS: But coming here. with re- this, frequently How spect to her Maureen tipstaff, Gu- you’re describing teaming, double shanas, if and Maureen occur? *51 going okay not arguing, and were a good day. we would have We Pretty constantly_ through the get would cases. Things they fine. If would be wer- Q. did Judge What Lokuta’s treatment having day en’t a good something you effect did Lo- I occurred came before into the —What
kuta’s you treatment of have? it morning, chamber that would not good day.
be a There would be arguments. hostile, It would be just cry every I was day would —I just day. not a good I got from I home work. just felt like were knots in there —I my constantly. stomach IWhen what, you And can if describe how— go to morning, would work in the it arguments anything, these —what if, know, be as would which effect these had on arguments the— Judge Lokuta is to be going to- on getting the work done in Court’s day. And it just constant. It that office? like you sitting pins all very distracting. It was wondering if, you the time like very her difficult—I’m law clerk. know, you slightest did the action sitting I’m in the comer of her you. happen what would It was chamber. There was a table set up just constant —I felt like in the corner her chamber. my had knots in all stomach got would sit there. You’ve just— time. was coming normal of traffic flow Okay,
JUDGE SPRAGUE: next out, know, asking the judge (N.T. 1238-66). question. questions, doing whatever. And Selyne Youngclaus, Respondent’s part- then would have continuous ar- 9, clerk April guments. trying time law from 2002 to June I’m focus and 3, concentrate, my research, 2003 and her clerk full-time law from do write 3, 2003, June 2003 to opinions, judge November testified do whatever state of Respondent’s about the affairs in wanted me to do. I have in the chambers as back my follows: head this banter be- Weber, had made her Maureen came—Maureen
tween her and Susan for a of vacation. request period point Fogelman and at one Andrea on the there, paperwork I don’t know the her was there when was end, result was other but end Sammon, Rebecca her and request her judge that the denied Maureen. untimely, given. excuse was or some extremely things get would When Maureen I don’t know what it was. escalate, arguments bad or the denied her judge found out that the and scream- top yelling then on request for a vacation. a constant inter- ing, there would be at her desk in judge sitting The buzzing com for either Maureen or chamber, and I’m at the corner to come Susan or Rebecca or whoever table, into the and Maureen bursts into the chambers. screams, I know chamber and judge’s into the They would no sooner come for a my request denied va- why chambers, them would tell cation, night last told it’s because something. got to do And before any- sleep I wouldn’t desk, buzzing back to their she was more. to ask them if it was again them very
on. It was difficult for me be- guess quiet cause I I need to have tone, you describe the vol- Can work get be able to focus and volume of this ume—the tone done. and forth? argument going back long buzzing, did this kind of How They heated. were—Mau- It was *52 out, chamber,
coming going in the It was reen came and screamed. in a being go typical buzzed I as far as was a volatile situation situation? didn’t want concerned. didn’t—I maybe, I probably A. She would buzz to hear there. I didn’t want know, continuously maybe 5 or don’t it. it point
10 minutes to the where just open left the door be- was—we your Judge time in Lokuta’s Q. During back and running were cause office, you able to observe how were forth between the antechamber persons? other staff she treated chamber. Now, Q. any specific do remember A. Yes. and Mau- Judge incidents of Lokuta in her office arguing reen Gushanas Fogelman Andrea A. I was there when there? when a secretary period was her Unfortunately, yes. A. got I first That time. about those? Q. you tell the Court Can in Park there, judge was and the Objection. It’s be- SINATRA: MR. an incident where Place. I recall yond the statute. came out judge told—the judge Overruled. JUDGE SPRAGUE: chamber, to the came out of her BY MR. PUSKAS: Andrea was. antechamber where Q. question. can You answer some- told Andrea do judge The what, and remember thing, don’t date. I was A. I cannot tell or, said, yes, table, yes, Andrea in—-at corner sitting sir— rebuttal, Judge. Selyne And the went back in Called Board her Youngclaus chambers. And then she comes was asked to certain address testimony given back Maureen had out few seconds later and Gushanas Respon- her says, regarding relationship Your that’s Honor me. testimony Youngclaus’s dent. Ms. was: Q. tone, volume, And do recall her Q. Youngclaus, your pres- Ms. out of or manner when came back she out ence, Maureen Gushanas testified Fogelman? to Andrea proceedings these that she did not Demeaning. agitated. She she tell another coworker that had I thought maybe missing I was injury an to her arm or or that leg mean, said, something. yes, her, Judge had hit punched Lokuta Judge. But good that wasn’t her. She also denied that she ever enough. night, called another coworker at crying complaining that What did observe about her pushed stairs; her Lokuta down the treatment Susan Weber? fought that the two them up Lokuta had thought can—I’ve about this at against the wall. length. I can only describe it as oppressive. It a continuous specific testimony I’m to read someone, beating down of oppres- from Maureen provided Gushanas inescapable. sive and you questions. trial and then ask Okay. JUDGE SPRAGUE: And what? referring This is tran- to the trial Inescapable. There was no—There 12th, 2007, script for December right was no answer. There was Page 2105, starting top. at the nothing do any- couldn’t —Susan “QUESTION: fact,
thing right. In isn’t constant true berating. people don’t know how else to told office, coworkers, describe it. *53 Judge punched you? Lokuta has
BY MR. PUSKAS: tone, Q. volume, kind of what and No, A. “ANSWER: I not. have manner Judge Lokuta exhibit That is not true. toward Susan Weber? BY MR. PUSKAS: Very demeaning, very would —She Q. “QUESTION: fact, In haven’t raise her voice to her at times. She you called another coworker at would—I would be there for a lot of night, crying complaining exchanges the because the al- saying Judge pushed that Lokuta ways wanted to someone have else stairs, you you fought down there. can’t say I that she ever you up her and she had stupid, called say, her but she would against a wall? why you can’t understand what I’m No, Counselor, I “ANSWER: asking you to do or what’s the—do am never did. I twice her size.
you problem, have is there some- Remember, weigh I thing preventing you from under- “QUESTION:
standing you Q. what I Isn’t it true that want do. (N.T. 1322-80). told that another coworker starting 2105, Line 24— injury Page arm or on your had an be “Isn’t it that told another
leg, Judge punched that Lokuta true injury that had an you? hit coworker or that Lokuta leg, arm or No, is A. “ANSWER: that you?” or hit punched true.”
“No, that true.” is not your specific response is What BY MR. PUSKAS: that? Q. you agree testimony? Do with that A. That she lied. Shе did tell me that.
A. No. cry- be She would call—she would your response to that? What crying. She be And I ing. would constantly Maureen Gushanas her, I she guess believed because up pick called me. would crying hard she so when already phone and she would be (N.T. 3528-33). telling me this. me crying. during She call would rebuttal, Krohn called in Ted Also evenings. She call me would testimony asked of Mau- about same morning every Saturday almost un- Gushanas, asked: reen he was got point phone til it to the that the Krohn, your presence, Mr. out numerous, calls were so Maureen Gushanas testified these stopped taking phone calls. she proceedings that did not tell messages left her an- Loku- another coworker swering I just machine. couldn’t hit punched ta had her. anymore. deal itwith specific I’m to read some cry- call. She She would testimony from Maureen Gushanas She told me about ing. would—she then I during proceedings these incident Annie had a an when you questions. will ask altercation, physical that Annie steps. her I don’t pushed Yes, down sir. house, if it know was at Annie’s Mau- right. referring All I’m trial house,
reen’s don’t know. She 12th, 2007, transcript December injured me she either her arm or told or, Page pardon specifically 2104— leg. I’m not sure it was. which me, starting at Line 1. This is She told me about another incident question to Gushanas. Maureen fight had a about some- fact, “In isn’t it true that thing. don’t know office, your in the cowork- people told *54 pushed Annie her up about. That ers, punched Lokuta that has had against somehow wall you?” arm across her —her neck her —her know, (demonstrating), I don’t “No, I not true.” have not. That is her holding shoulders back wall, impression I against was the BY MR. PUSKAS:
got from her. read
Q. Hearing testimony here Court, you today agree in do with Q. And, I specifically, read some testimony? a testimony. I had asked Maureen it question, “Isn’t true” —this
A. Absolutely not. an to observe how she opportunity on the bench? conducts herself BY MR. PUSKAS: Yes, A. I times. I few When Q. What is response? there, worked she wasn’t on My A. response outright is that it’s an bench a lot. whole lie. Q. opportunity Did an from have Q. Can tell the Court what the time worked there ob- specific about area that know she serve how conducts herself are rebutting? we the chambers? being I recall in chambers one Yes, I did. morning judge’s secretary, with the you? How did she treat Weber, Susan awaiting the arrival very me, very She was mean to judge. Maureen Gushanas condescending. Both she and her sometime arrived before the secretary, Maureen, very, very arrived, I believe took off her me, condescending, nasty. mean to out, sweater. Held I believe was She told me—She would not let me arm, pointed her left to some bruis- on, help her her put robe said, es and if she ever hits me robe on because I she said had cat again, she’s going very, very to be hair, know, I did not. which You I sorry. pride my ap- take —I would take sitting And I was there. I looked pearance prior going to work. I Susan, at Maureen looked at go did not with cat hair or work
and made no comment whatsoever. any kind of hair or kind of dirt very recall that distinctly, without my clothing. any question or hesitation whatsoever. you tell the hap- Can Court what JUDGE SPRAGUE: a minute. Wait pened helping after finished question. have a There’s a lot of Judge Lokuta with her robe? “shes” in this world. Who is the into the courtroom. We went “she” that was referred to? said, rise, county all court is now THE WITNESS: Judge, there session and went into the court- question no in my mind that she was in, room. And when we came back referring to— disciplining telling she started me MR. going object. SINATRA: I’m embarrassed, me she was so THE Judge Lokuta be- WITNESS: — county never heard court all her cause she had complained also of simi- if I up life and didn’t I wasn’t wise events, lar indicating the judge by job In long. name, past. in the This was not an afternoon hadwe motions court. (N.T. 3579-88). isolated incident. you explain to the Could Court Moyer volume, Susan in Respondent’s tone, worked and the manner in a tipstaff secretary chambers as from you? spoke which Lokuta *55 18, 17, February May 2005 to 2005 and she Judge very A. Lokuta was condescend- experience testified of that as follows: frantic, dark, ing, very very nasty, Q. And from time in working evil. She would look at me with office,
Judge you eyes Lokuta’s did have hatred in her that I such would totally petrified, frightened. put pa- become would want it onto another per kept She told me if I didn’t she all of the inci- know what because hard, doing, involving any it’s not that that I dents her or of the judges other in binders. wasn’t to work out.
1366-72). Sometimes I would need to make a
copy copy page on a because the first say something, would and then it BY MR. PUSKAS: page. would be continued on another Q. happened after that? What And I in process doing would be A. may getting believe motions—I be that, copies and she’d ask me to make up. messed Motions— something. her or Q. take your Just time. day doing And one I was some A. Motions were the afternoon. work, papers, and she came out with They always a fiasco. Noth- and she said to to the me—She went ing right. was ever copy copies. machine. She made Well, Q. hold on. take this We’ll slow- said, your job, And she this is but I ly. Were there other incidents you’re it, don’t if if know able do you Judge worked for Lokuta while you’re enough smart or—it wasn’t can tell the about Court enough you’re smart if intelli- —but regarding you? her treatment of gent enough to how to make know Oh, yes. Oftentimes she would talk (N.T. 1382-85). copies. understand, too for me to quickly Susan Respondent’s Weber was execu- her, and I look at would she’d secretary tive from 1996 to 2001 and then say, look at me and is there some- again September from 2002 to March thing wrong you, did ever experience she testified about her working injuries head that would in Respondent’s chambers as follows: cause not to understand what Q. Why Judge ... Loku- leave people asking you. are employ? ta’s speak In what manner would she retention, judge’s A. After the it was tone, you, her volume? chambers, very really tense in and I loud, It be and it be would would felt that I couldn’t take that atmo- condescending and in a disciplinary sphere every single day. So de- way belittling. She asked me try get job cided to law a that on numerous occasions. private firm. law you say during When tense give you Lokuta When would mean period, first what do assignment, an how much time that? transpire you got before an- would assignment? other a lot get assignment, fighting going I would one and a There was chambers, get arguing minutes later I an- a lot of back
few would and forth Lokuta assignment, other and wouldn’t between Gushanas, one. For ex- and Maureen and then it finished with the first spill just an article out over onto me. ample, might want every day problematic. became paper and—But she wouldn’t Everything to do it paper. out of the She went want *56 tell problem. was a And there You can was ten- JUDGE SPRAGUE: sion, background. ahead. and there I Go fighting. was And I really just couldn’t take it. And trying A. so I to And make this I thought really get have to out arrangement for continuance here. was too much. pretrial I conference. And clerk, to spoke called and her law BY MR. PUSKAS: Krohn, and he said that he Ted Q. you So left? prob- it didn’t think that would be a Yes, A. I did. I to relayed lem. information you left, And you provide boss, did my problem and his was that a of resignation? letter had a disposition deposition, he — sorry, I’m that he had to attend in Yes, A. I did. Scranton, it, he couldn’t make and you express And did Judge to he would like reschedule. We Lokuta as for leaving? reason thought that it was taken care of. A. felt That I that I to get needed into Well, day of the conference I a different area of law in order to a call phone Judge received from Lo- my further future goals. asking was, kuta’s chambers where he Q. Did encapsulatе your entire he deposi- stated that reason for leaving? And I tion Scranton. was told that No, get A. in touch it didn’t. needed with him and get Judge him to Lokuta’s chambers Q. Why you write letter that immediately. way? happened What after that is that Because felt that the judge would Lokuta called me at office Judge be very vindictive she would working where and was And, fact, come after me. even screaming yelling at me over the with that letter stated way phone. Everybody girls could—The was, did.10 she IWhen worked for sitting next to me could hear Eugene Sperazza was— which very whole conversation. And it was very embarrassing, uncomfortable. attorney The I worked for had BY MR. PUSKUS: for a pretrial asked continuance of a say? did she What conference, and I had called Judge said, you dare my She how call to, Lokuta’s chambers in order continuance, for a chambers and ask know, make that provision him. procedure, know that’s how And I told that— this, you’ve got get could do MR. object SINATRA: I’m your attorney conference. to what she was— went and on Overruled, JUDGE SPRAGUE: This on. conversation,
leads under- sort JUDGE SPRAGUE: Could it, stand Lo- had with illustrate, you, but it’s not could kuta. manner and illustrate the tone Lokuta, With correct. on that call? phone 6, supra. 10. See n. *57 said, difficult,
Q. very I I I That’s a little but she— So was hesitant. know, know, Maureen, you it don’t your JUDGE Do SPRAGUE: best. tense, pretty it was bad pretty was A. When Lokuta an- Judge get would said, well, I left. And she before gry, very strong, use a she would it, know, sleep on it think about loud And how is voice. dare talk more. So and we’ll some we say, very what emphati- she would just And I had talked some more. cally, just very demeaning and it’s house, an a old needed lot purchased and and belittling intimidating. fixing up. JUDGE SPRAGUE: Continue. going object SINATRA: I’m to MR. Oh, Gene, A. so the outcome was that the stream of consciousness. Eugene, had to leave deposition his Overruled. JUDGE SPRAGUE. Scranton, his get paralegal, go relating consider- why She’s she—her courthouse, over to the and sit going ations for back to work Judge chambers with Lokuta. judge. When I they got getting was —And Correct, yes. And the amount of very about this back sitting nervous I much job. money making This was a I was was less office. new I at Loku- Judge than what made trying to turn over a new leaf. So, said, ta’s. had new Eugene paralegal And when his really I had office, responsibility, came they just back into said, longer that after no hoped shook head and their well— Krohn, Ted Mike Kostelaba had had object MR SINATRA: I’m going to left, left, thought maybe I had to— maybe seeing that this she’s she’s— You JUDGE SPRAGUE: can’t relate way staff, not the treat Did said. leaf, she’ll turn a new maybe over further with Judge conversation Lo- things okay. can make maybe we kuta on this matter? I even to her on the And talked No, sir, not. did We had a conversation phone. BY MR. PUSKAS: said, that, And she think phone. Q. And did come about that went know, things will be fine that work for Lokuta second going things to handle dif- we’re time? I had ferently every this time. So A. Yes. about optimism the whole situation happen? How that did things might better this time. that be Gu- approached I was Maureen it a willing give And I second home, called shanas. She me try. she said you went back? So secretary, that Andrea looking for back. A. So I went leaving. Fogelman be long you stay with her And how I think that she she said this second time? receptive your coming very that on back to She said work. The stint I believe Okay. second
several occasions she wished to about 15 or 16 months be- back at work with came Susan Weber was of 2002 to September it was her. cause March of I think I had somebody 2004. So but I felt that to let *58 months, exactly going out to about 16 was on in works know what something that. like that chambers.
BY MR. PUSKAS:
Q. And your employment how did Q. can tell you What the Court about
come to an end there? you? Lokuta’s treatment of A. My employment came to an end quite I frankly just because had —I A. For I the first six months that was anymore. couldn’t take it September January, back from it Q. you Did quit? —You really that bad. It was wasn’t A. I I in my resignation, did. handed somewhat bearable. She would and I wrote her a note and said that days have her bad but direct- never I cannot take abusive behavior anything ed at me. It wasn’t that any longer, I handed her you couldn’t handle at the end of keys. said, And I I just can’t take day. it, you this is what anyway, want January, shortly After Mort after I and walked out. left, Gordon treatment me ev- And, thereafter, Q. you did file a com- ery day one that I was couldn’t walk plaint Complaint with the Judicial across the room that it right. wasn’t Board? I Nothing did was correct. And it Yes,
A. I did. you that just wasn’t were scolded or Is that the complaint you that filed reprimanded. You were screamed at Judicial Conduct Board? for it. you stupid You were told Yes, it is. matter you attempted during no what day. you And when did file that? April filed that in of 2004. give you pat- And she would —The
tern that became the norm give would task. She would Q. Why complaint file that you an- give wait 10 minutes. She’d with the Judicial Conduct Board? task, minutes, other another 10 wait MR. going object, SINATRA: I’m give you another one. And in the Your Honor. meantime, you, in- buzzing she’s she’s JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. terrupting you. And then she’d come complaint filed the because was screaming and she’d start for the so unbearable. me. Excuse results from the first task which imagine anybody couldn’t else hav- complete didn’t have time to obvi- ing go It through that. ously. something changed my life for- keep occurring And this would over ever because the abuse so in- again. and over over And she persistent. tense and relentless and just badger you. would It was relent- me, just And I that it knew just peri- And it wasn’t for that less. that it people extended other throughout od of time. It went on somebody well. And I felt day. whole needed to I didn’t know. know complaint, come of the did that make feel? How Horrible, because it was A. Yes. It is difficult stupid, nervous. of- repetitious, and it was so very anything
couldn’t focus on because .... ten just kept worrying go- when is she yelling again, at me
ing start thing going the next I’m what is incident, and I’m Q. Was there another do that is to be a mistake. 10th, 2008, referencing December made make mistakes because Maureen had an outburst where You were you couldn’t focus. in front of Lokuta? *59 waiting the next hit. for A. Yes. tone, volume, her and What was about that? addressing you
manner when she was tell the Court Can you? Yes, judge I can. The had miscella- day, and it was neous court that extremely A. Her tone was conde- customary at the end of her miscel- at Her scending, sarcastic times. court that the files would laneous really if angry volume she was processing. come back to me for screeching. you And if you was receipt a And there was you try to defend went —If would usually filled people prothonotary insubordinate, yourself, you were out, to and it indicate as would you get and screamed at a matter was contin- whether or not If I say anything, that. didn’t she ued or whatever. passive screamed at me that I was me back brought So Maureen way no to aggressive. There was files, receipt I noticed that un- handle the situation. It was Maureen, said, And I there. wasn’t bearable. one, I no- question a about this you give specific the Court some Can And receipt that the isn’t here. ticed examples of incidents that occurred walking she turned on me. She was Lokuta you and between around. She away. She turned generally that —You’ve described face, me, got right turned you, treatment of but can her screaming at me and and started specific examples of her give some dare say, at me and how pointing you? treatment a liar. call me Honor, may Maureen, we said, MR. SINATRA: Your I didn’t call And I peri- liar, relate the time have the witness a asked where doing? question as we have been receipt od first was. Don’t ever Oh, you’re yeah, do. anything that I you give As JUDGE SPRAGUE: аny mis- never makes the one who examples approxima- to the best these and yelling And started takes. she tion this occurred state about when on and on and screaming going and can. And if there’s the best on. on such problem a because away, to walk And then she started a basis— recurring chambers in her judge and the was Exactly. all of doorway noticing and but in the it which nothing stop it’s diffi- this and did JUDGE SPRAGUE: —that If she saw quite usual. repetition, then was also cult because of some— just say so. object supposed given.
MR. SINATRA: I’m going to have been got very, very agitated to the editorialization. But she upset. And could see JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. fight because she brew
Continue. back bounding came into chambers members, —between staff she said, at the pointed nothing to it it diffuse and to set why, Judge, I’m not because right and to resolve it. So Maureen sleeping you anymore? away turned on—After she turned then she flew out. me, yelling from started Well, me, a shock judge, secretary she’s worst I’ve but it a shock to a lot other my life, ever seen in she wouldn’t staff very members made them know her ass from hole in the upset uncomfortable and them. ground.
BY MR. PUSKAS: *60 Q. you Q. Do an doing recall incident on—I’m What was Lokuta dur- 20th, June
referencing ing this time? 2003—where Judge Lokuta and Maureen Gusha- A. She at her sitting desk. arguing nas were something about Q. you Do recall anything she with Maureen’s vacation? said? A. Yes. A. Maureen —I think she some- said Q. you Can tell the about that? Court like, Maureen, thing you know that they you A. Because to arguing quite were have have six weeks’ notice. just go.
lot. And then she let her That was it. Q. all, present, Who was first at loud
time? How was Maureen Gushanas? loud, A. Very extremely A. all in loud. She judge’s We were the chamber. screamed it. judge, It was the myself, believe
Selyne Youngclaus, Rebecca Sam- Q. Were there other occasions where may mon been in either cham- Judge Lokuta in cham- arguing earshot, ber within but think bers with Maureen Gushanas? she was chamber. I think we Many, many, many A. they occasions all judge’s were in the chamber. chambers, fighting were and the And Maureen given judge had the judge constantly, will call chambers vacation, memo requesting a and they fight would over the the judge saying denied it that she phone. disrupt everything would six didn’t have weeks’ notice and do you trying during were required six she weeks’ notice which day. the phone course The about, a rule that I never knew forth, calls back judge changed constantly. You never call. Maureen hang up would would knew what rules were. The call judge her. would back. object
MR. SINATRA: I’m going pick up I’d the phone. to— MR. I’m going object SINATRA: SPRAGUE: JUDGE Overruled. phone calls.
A. Maureen back by you So was taken this. Did JUDGE SPRAGUE: observe
She didn’t realize six weeks’ notice this? Oh, there, sir, you
A. absolutely. I was Were able hear what saying Lokuta to Maureen Gu- JUDGE Overruled. SPRAGUE: shanas— A. And a lot times had to answer Yes, I A. phone, would be was. and forth. And then back you What present? —while were know, yell me, give, would hear? then phone Maureen. And At time particular one Maureen go they would back forth. And phone held the out for me to hear. particular one time—Maureen was always trying to cover be- herself she told
cause me— ques- ... The JUDGE SPRAGUE: to— n was, tion Maureen held out the MR. object SINATRA: would judge, to hear the what phone JUDGE That’s sus- SPRAGUE: it that judge. heard from You tell tained. can’t us what Maureen said. said, her, The judge called she Mau- reen, you’re a fat nothing pig, but said, okay. I can’t tell whore, lowlife. BY MR. PUSKAS: May MR. SINATRA: I have that Q. You can continue. You talk- again, please. date phone ing about these calls where pick up. believe was 3/28/03. *61 A. Yes. you. MR. SINATRA: Thank going object. I’m MR. SINATRA: to BY MR. PUSKAS:
That’s— tell about Q. you What can the Court This is JUDGE SPRAGUE: a conver- Judge or volume Lokuta’s tone sation with Lokuta. Overruled. you heard statement? when we a time MR. SINATRA: Can have screaming A. She it. 1463- was period? 89). JUDGE This happened SPRAGUE: hearing. all time I’m about Re- Rebecca Sammon testified from other offices of spondent’s alienation sir, did, yes, A. the time. It all County, of Luzerne indeed the courts from JUDGE Go ahead. SPRAGUE: virtually everyone who worked certainly A. It did. courthouse, as follows: things And Q. what other kind Q. you picking up the When you have do? she you phone, what did hear I know that she had me—The first say? Lokuta sorry, I I don’t year there —I’m was on this get You Maureen Gushanas had go mean back—but she me to And I’d phone right now. then into a with the complaint research go try get and and Maureen regarding AOPC some treatment try get Maureen to answer she felt that it was—felt how keep so call- phone she wouldn’t mistreat- maybe being like she was ing every back five minutes. ed. pattern re- that was would Q. Mistreated whom? constantly. peat By county nursing facility. other members of the home And she— system, judges, my court be it the other mother the assistant vice- administrators, know, you president, daughter the court people. very different I an- patient would also there when she was young. swer the I phone sometimes. would write memos back and forth to oth- I if it an or don’t know accident er—to a lot of them to file. I what, very but she had some debilitat-
would, you know, I would—When ing injuries. So she kind of— would there, that, know, thought you left friendly my mom and she was with you memo writing had to document very thankful for that. And my everything. be like stub would know, say, you mom would tell Mrs. toe, write memo. Hanlin hello for me whatever. And Q. you Did she instruct those write call, she polite would be
memos? her; pleasant and she would A. Yes. say, don’t be pleasant to that woman.
Q. She would tell that? ... And was look into different A. Or she’s no or this friend matters regarding documenting dif- was, like, well, chamber. And ferent things happening that were her, really mom knows and she’s AOPC, back and forth with re- nice. issues, searching different like Did explain ever—did ever sheriff, one issues issues why she considered them not with, know, things different friends of her chambers? (N.T. 1242-44). that were on. A. She kind of had this attitude like (Exhibit R-643) In her deposition Sam- get she was out to her. spoke mon subject as follows: Did interact with your perspective, you And from *62 other or people working interns coming in from working the outside judicial other offices? there, you get the sense that No, sir, people get A. uh-uh. out to her?
Q. Why not? there, A. At I I first —when first came I wasn’t able—I wasn’t allowed to. was, like, geez, they do kind of treat Q. you mean, do What weren’t al- unfairly. her a little bit But then— was, like,
lowed to? and she it’s because I’m a like, And I’m gee, woman. that’s talking She didn’t like me to other that, not cool. But after kind of judges. talking She didn’t like me there, was, like, being I no not it’s to the other interns. woman; you’re because a it’s be- Q. discourage Did she that? you’re incredibly cause nice to Oh, Like, yeah. I Judge know Au- be around. gello’s secretary. a She’s not friend family, they’re
of our friendly, but And this is horrible because I feel she and mom. She took Mrs.— awful about this. This is someone really up last name is Hanlin —Mrs. that I looked to and I— daughter my Hanlin’s I’m—in way, mom took— no I’m kind of worried — at, like, my mom a myself was—worked about because she tends to do in, what, fil- they were stored against peo- And retaliatory things ing cabinets? ple.... And would A. Or bookcases. AOPC, be, like, to the letters letters you describe her cham- Q. How would Judge Augello regarding, it there bers, way looked? Is know, soap or what- the elevator anything that stuck out going she ever the heck was mind? that particular off about week. mean, I she really. A. Not would 82-42). (Exhibit R-643, pp. Like, had things. hoard she draw- Selyne Youngclaus, Respondent’s law ers full of Beanie Babies clerk, subject: on the testified apparent for no reason. any policy Did Lokuta have out to children? Q. Did she hand them interaction personal on her staff A. No. One time she said—there were other staff at the courthouse? there; little kids out and someone other could not socialize with We said, give don’t them a why wе I there staff. In the 18 months was said, then she Baby? Beanie judge met another from Lu- I never no, said, no, then she sure. And County. I take coffee zerne would I they’re valuable. And was—I was reporters. the court I breaks with thinking, why does she have them? secretary. I think it was met a always copies of the She save would Augello’s secretary, Teresa. people, like a cards that sent I don’t her last name. was know birthday card. She’d make Well, I take I wasn’t told. told— copy of it. make go that back. I would downstairs. Q. Of she sent? going tell them I was for a would go down- coffee break. would Like, been a A. Yes. it could have room. If They had a snack stairs. heck birthday card. saves Who long, too Maureen gone they send to other birthday cards say that the come down copies make people? But she would get back and me. sent her come And I that. know when— And I told that shouldn’t— in file? keep Did she object. I’m MR. SINATRA: upon A. Yeah. She had binders binders identification of There’s not even an upon binders. speaker here. keep these Q. And does she where *63 I take it that SPRAGUE: JUDGE binders? and relat- speaking you Maureen is A. In the chambers. by judge. told ing she was what Q. In her office? A. Yes. it at home Objection I’m some of was over-
A. sure JUDGE SPRAGUE: continuing to be of if it was ruled. You can tell us. because was, there’s no magnitude it me, sorry. I’m Honor. A. Pardon Your it all way could have stored she get come Maureen would down there. judge wanted me me and tell me get I upstairs.
back When would 6, supra. n. See said, know, back upstairs, you I ask what Maureen also doing. my was still leaves a bad taste mouth. Judge anything And never said about JUDGE Who’s she? SPRAGUE: just it. She stood there with a smirk
I’mA. sorry, Judge Lokuta. I’m sor- face. on her ry, Your I Honor. She asked what Judge Was Lo- JUDGE SPRAGUE: was, was I doing, I where and would present kuta when this— tell her was who I with. And the there, yes. A. She was that they told me were court, Excuse Mends of the JUDGE SPRAGUE: me.— should not be these kind of discussing things or statements were with them you by hanging said to Maureen? out with them. Yes,
1331-32). A. sir. you. JUDGE Thank SPRAGUE: Moyer, secretary, Susan Respondent’s testified on the subject: A. You’re welcome. Proceed, JUDGE SPRAGUE: Coun- day day This a also that a letter sel.
I had—a handwritten note I had Judge received from Conahan when BY MR. PUSKAS: I started was thrown my into face Q. me back up Let for minute here. which into nu- thrown face you by Judge When were hired Lo- merous times. kuta, you’ve mentioned the letter JUDGE Can explain SPRAGUE: receive here. When did a letter what mean that? by Judge from Conahan under what circumstances? Well, Judge Lokuta Maureen did not want judges I received a note from Cona- any of personnel gone the other court han. Maureen had down for knowing any morning. business the mail one going on in the chambers. And when was that after They judges disliked hired, long? how third floor very much. days. A. A few
MR. SINATRA: I’m object this day? And were at work to that and that that ask be stricken. day. at work this Maureen JUDGE sustain the ob- SPRAGUE: gone had down for mail. She jection and part strike that letter, up. She me a came handed answer. You throwing said this letter it envelope. an was from explain face. Just opened Conahan. it up, meant that. wishing and was a note me and if I anything well needed to let Well, me, say Maureen would know. him can’t you got believe from letter
Judge Conahan, you why I get- know that we Maureen asked me here, Judge hate him one Judge ting is the a note from Conahan. you, Conahan, had Judge signed
who hired not And it been Mike. She no, you said, so need call him I said I you to remember where Mike.
your priorities Judge are. That him but he call Conahan said, well, she up signed thrown to me numerous times. Mike. And can you talking you, you a letter. to then why would he send I reen’s said, I ran a said. program because bail relate what Maureen his had under direction and I worked you, Judge A. Lokuta was Thank sir. him approximately with for seven had a present. Judge Lokuta never said, well, he’s years. And she not lot to to me she was say real unless boss, is, Judge you’re if chastising me. Maureen would friends with him that a really leaves well, a say, you’re the one who’d if taste You my bad mouth. don’t fucking on the pig friend that belong here. floor, here you belong third don’t a Q. you got Did Maureen Gushanas inform I still can’t believe a Judge Lokuta about that note? note from him and that still leaves Judge Lo- my bad taste mouth. Judge gone. A. She did. had been there, standing and she kuta was Judge day not that when I just smirk. would received the note. But Maureen Continue, JUDGE SPRAGUE: Coun- called her. sel. Q. you there when she called Were
her? BY MR. PUSKAS: happened to note? yes. A. call What judge, overhead her Maureen, A. Judge According Q. And happened what next? — file, my it in so that’s judge wanted said, Judge, A. She came out and she it went. where is— object MR. I’m going SINATRA: question JUDGE SPRAGUE: Your to— is, Judge there come a time when Did JUDGE SPRAGUE: Sustained. mem- spoke Lokuta about that Judge conversation with orandum? Lokuta about this conversation Yes, there was. you got Maureen or the note that Judge from Conahan? BY MR. PUSKAS: note, And did that occur? got A. One the sir? when day February 22nd. On No, anytime. JUDGE SPRAGUE: year? And the day, yes. A. On that She me apologize. asked And tell JUDGE SPRAGUE: us on, why what about conversation. Judge from receive note Conahan. brought up A. Maureen had note being SPRAGUE: She JUDGE again. I don’t know what kind And Judge Lokuta? use, expletives sir. Yes, sir. SPRAGUE: We understand JUDGE Go ahead. JUDGE SPRAGUE: you speaking. this is not We weren’t there, pro- told only way can A. And I her about the bail so the we know and I Conahan you’re talking gram about it, always good rapport. had a language. recreate use what so said, one who not on but he’s But focus is what Maureen did, you need job, said. If offered so said but what Lokuta loyalties lay. know present Mau- where Judge Lokuta was *65 in, didn’t want me to That’s she Maureen that come and she when told disrupt she in the action. put plan wanted the letter file. object
MR. SINATRA: I’m I’m interpreting flowery too Q. What, if anything, you were told up means. It’s to the Court to inter- Judge Lokuta interac- about pret that. departments tion with other court personnel?
or other court JUDGE Overruled. SPRAGUE: Judge anyone A. Lokuta not want BY MR. PUSKAS: being in her friendly office Q. any instruction you given Were re- anyone not peo- else. She did want garding how were—if there ple coming office. to the She told call phone was—If a was made me that. And did not want she me Judge the office about Lokuta’s talking anyone in the courthouse. whereabouts, you given were in- I was not to use the phone. allowed struction on how answer that? MR. identify SINATRA: we Can who A. Verbatim. is, pronoun? use By whom, JUDGE SPRAGUE: A. Judge Lokuta. I apologize. Counsel? JUDGE That’s all right. SPRAGUE: MR. By Judge PUSKAS: Lokuta. Proceed. Verbatim, yes, A. I was. Judge A. Lokuta would tell me that get along she did not with the other BY MR. PUSKAS: judges or any of the —most of the What were told? personnel courthouse and that available, it, A. Judge is not that’s would be smart to hang out with time, Judge is not at this available them or associate with them in may message. I take a then way because they always were caus- message. would take the trouble, ing they were bunch of Q. Now, under what circumstances incompetents. about were instructed that? She did not want judges coming to call, If anyone judges or were
chambers. She did not judges want anyone, the court administrator calling phone. on the As a matter of available, anyone, Judge may is not fact, she point, said to me one message. I take a long Maureen and worked hard to Did that if apply also Lokuta attorneys not come here or call was, fact, chambers? phone, on the you’re flowery. too (N.T. 1375-90). Yes. Susan Weber about the rela- testified Q. What did Lokuta tell tionship Respondent had with the court phone telling were on employees administrator’s office and somebody but not to call office; being nice? you tell about that? Can thе Court in, She I’m flowery would tell too Yes. me The came the af- ternoon,
which meant I too peo- right nice to behind her Jack ple, Mulroy had worked for the court long Maureen who works ad- hard not—to have them not ministration behind her. came *66 Sis,
He had for concern- ted to call her I must call her information her ing summer interns. And he said given Ann her name. her, I Judge, that to have informa- calling Q. long had been How your request tion for Sis? summer interns can start. Well, I for the working Well, the judge turned on Jack so I since 1996 and ever since knew angry approach-
fast and so at him for exactly Ann. I don’t know when she said, Jack, I ing her. And she told working, years. but for started jurist that want this—this wants writing, that in I need that informa- Q. any particu- have Did Lokuta in writing, way
tion that’s the this gave lar that she instructions jurist it. kept saying, wants She staff that would have heard re- jurist. apologized. And Jack He your interaction with other garding said, sorry, I’m I had Judge, terribly judicial chambers or other court idea, judges, no all with the other personnel? just usually verbally. let them know She continued to him about it. scold stint, I Upon my arrival to second And then— was told no uncertain terms was tone, volume, luncheons, Q. What was her any secretary I to attend manner? meet- any court administration staff month, once a ings place that took very high, extremely A. Volume tone friendly anybody not to be man, to this and I condescending any of from court administration or really standing felt for him there They were the other secretaries. taking this. enemy. Q. happened after that? So she What scolded him? And told this? who Yes, Mulroy Mr. she did. And then A. Judge Lokuta. that, then I got left. And then after And were those the words yelled at he came in after because used— up steps she came and was out A. Yes. That fault. And breath. got yelled Q. —they enemy? so I at for that. And she are the me, you said to to understand A. Yes. us, lackey, he’s he answers to any protocol there Was him, we tell he doesn’t dictate court schedule Lokuta had for the us.... that to court gave and whether she
administration? again: And did not want court administra- She girls A. One of the that works court schedule, have her so we tion to name is Ann administration —the admin- give court were forbidden always been introduced Hoedl—has Only her schedule. istration to me as Sis. to me and known have it and the could prothonotary Everybody her as Sis. was knows stenographers. and have introduced to her as Sis her Sis. And was always called again: day permit- told that that I was not *67 Q. Judge give you any spe- judge’s Did Lokuta A. Mort Gordon was the law regarding my
cific instructions woman clerk when came back for Kay named Faber? second stint. And Mort Gordon friendly Judge Conahan. with Yes, she did. time, go So from time to he would Kay Who was Faber? over the courthouse and visit Kay Faber for adminis- works court judge. Judge the Lokuta with tration, Kay and Faber about a lives very found out about it and was quarter of a mile from home. this, upset over she felt that he Kay is very Faber terrified of driv- relaying Judge information to snow, ing in the so when the bad concerning her Conahan chambers. starts— weather got paranoid And she about very result, as a this. And she started Kay very Faber is frightened of coming every on Mort for lit- down driving, so it whenever snow would thing berating tle that he did and appear snow, ready be him. Kay take in would and drive her again And here would have she oth- Judge always home. knew this. chamber, er staff members in her did it. theOn of a eve snowstorm in, she call him would and she would the as the leaving cham- right berate him in front every- of ber, me, oh, she turned and said body. And it was horrible to watch. way, you’re the Kay to take (N.T. 1516-17). And—it was horrible. said, in if it Faber snows. And I well, Judge, you always know that Discussion Kay do take snows. And said, well, you’re to, not allowed Respondent’s that We find con inappropriate. it’s testimony duct described in the set out explain why? Did she convincing above is clear and of evidence
A. She said that it was because there violation of: Kay Faber does work Sen-
was— A.(3) 1. Canon 3 Code of Judicial Judge Brown, ior doing and he was 1; in charged Conduct as Count opinion an concerning the Delesan- 18(d)(1) Y, § 2. Article Pennsyl- Judge dro matter and Lokuta. And vania Constitution for the conduct is she felt that it be inappropri- brings judicial such that office for me to riding ate in the ear disrepute charged into as in Count her, ignored. which I 1504-12). 2; 18(d)(1) V, § 3. Article of the Pennsyl-
Susan Weber Respon- testified about vania Constitution for the conduct is relationship dent’s with President prejudices proper such that ad- Conahan: justice charged ministration What, anything, if can tell the 6; Count Court about Lokuta’s treat- ment Mort Gordon? 3B.(1) of 4. Canon the Code of Judicial
Conduct.12 5, supra. 12. See n. testimony conduct findings
We will discuss these find describes order is so as to listed above. chambers which extreme judicial disrepute. into bring the office 3A.(3)provides:
1. Canon above, 3 and 4. As noted we find patient, Judges dignified, should be testimony set out the Discussion witnesses, litigants, jurors, courteous to prejudices proper such above others lawyers, and with whom deal *68 (Pa. Const.Art.V, justice of administration in capacity, their official should re- and 18(d)(1)) § a violation of as well as Canon quire lawyers, similar conduct of and of 3B.(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. staff, officials, their court and others subject to their direction and control. Eight law As witnesses—five clerks,14 in- legal secretaries and one two
What we said earlier when dis
Respondent
tern —who
for
at vari-
worked
Respondent’s
cussing
courtroom conduct
ous times between 1996 and
testified
3A.(3)
violating
applies
as
Canon
as well to
control,”
“loud,” “nasty,”
that the
“out of
Respondent’s
in
conduct
chambers. We
bi-
“intimidating,” “oppressive”
repeat it but
make some
will not
we will
—indeed
of Respondent,
zarre —conduct
which was
bearing
the
additional observations
con
and,
occasions, of
“inescapable”
on some
duct
her tipstaff,
of
Maureen Gushanas.
Gushanas,
tipstaff,
Maureen
was dis-
The
pointedly requires,
only
canon
not
in
tracting
severely hampered them
and
judge
patient,
that
dignified
the
the
for
performance
the
of
duties
which
courteous,
“require
but
judge
also that the
paid
perform.
expect
We
(empha-
similar conduct of ... [her] staff”
find that it did. Each
that would. We
added). Respondent
sis
fails this test as
role in the
one of
had an essential
these
well,
the
of Maureen
conduct
Gushanas
of
of
operation of the Court Common Pleas
in this
pa-
described
record was neither
County.
one
these had a
Luzerne
Each
of
tient,
to those
dignified nor courteous
with
Lo-
job integral
operation
to the
of
capaci-
in her
daily
whom she
dealt
official
courtroom,
perform-
integral to the
kuta’s
ty
Respondent’s tipstaff.13
as
We will
duties, which,
turn,
of her
in
judicial
ance
say,
the
that
point except
belabor
read-
is
the
of
integral
proper
administration
ing
testimony
day
in
case on the
the
justice
County.
We refer
Luzerne
day comportment Respondent
of
and Mau-
again
holding
to our
In re Smith where
office,
gets
reen Gushanas in this
one
the
we said:
picture
something
of
out of
Carroll
Lewis
following
the
stan-
adopt
therefore
We
the
or Dickens rather than of
chambers of
the
determine
elements which
dard
pleas.
a
of
court
common
of
of
proper
constitute the
administration
So,
find,
reason,
for this additional
we
of
justice.
justice
The administration
3A.(3)
has
Respondent
violated Canon
of
encompasses all
of the courts
work
of the
of
Code
Judicial Conduct.
systemat-
aid
common
which
in the
pleas
operation
ic
normal functions
2. What we said earlier about
prejudices
system.
Conduct which
Respondent’s disсourteous conduct
be
court
...
justice
of
judicial
proper
office into
administration
ing
brings
such that
obstructs or interferes
disrepute to her conduct in
is conduct which
applicable
enable the
adopt
those activities which
language
chambers. We
with
clerk,
conduct,
Flaherty,
also worked as
14. One law
13. For more on Gushanas's
see
incident,
tipstaff.
Adonizio
infra.
Nota-
The
or “not friends of this chamber.”16
systematic operation of the courts.
category were
“systematic operation” encompass-
term
bles included in this
only
procedures adopted
es not
administrator and
prothonotary, the court
functioning,
courts
aid in
but also
which
Toole and Conahan
Judges
President
expected
the standards
conduct
happened
employed
to be
anybody who
judicial
performance
officers in the
animosity
In her chambers
their offices.17
Hence,
of the courts.
work
air. Members of her staff were
from
judicial
departs
officer’s conduct
cordial,
civil,
being
berated for
even
with
expected
judges
the standard
and has
“not
designated as
those
obstructing
interfering
the effect of
This conduct is antithetical to
friends.”18
systematic operation
or normal
3B.(1).
the instruction of Canon
court,
functions of the
his conduct will We, therefore,
Respondent’s
hold
the proper
have affected
administration
3B.(1) of
conduct is a violation of Canon
*69
of the courts.
the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Smith;
Numerous testified about Re- witnesses spondent’s penchant actually compul- her — constantly ... But she criti- would spread public sion—to on the record bitter Judge, cize the President Court Ad- complaints president judge, about her oth- ministration in itself ad nau- County er judges, Luzerne and other court (N.T. 576-77). seam.... departments, particularly the office of the court administrator. reporter Cynthia Raehilla testi- Court fied: example,
For law clerk Ted Krohn testi- fied; if put could a time frame relate, please on do so?
Q. During the time that worked Lokuta and court, open again, A. Yes. Yes. courtroom, her observe her continuance on the record with sev- speak from the bench about other paragraphs eral filled with how in court departments judges? her burdensome schedule that was upon presi- thrust the new A. Yes. judge, dent an order that he had commentary And what kind of promulgated which she has commit- she make? memory. ted to *70 Again, bashing often the other A. constantly She criticize the would judges open front of an courtroom court administrator’s office for the her how brethren the bench do type nature and cases does, things not do as she and that assigned to her. She would con- way penalized her for —that stantly criticize some the other doing things way.2004, again— in her judges for assigning certain cases to you say- JUDGE SPRAGUE: When many her. And times com- those on, you say before move we anywhere take ments would from bashing judges, you just— other can ten to 15 minutes of court time. do have a concrete illustration to just go She on and on the would tell us? being courtroom critical to the ex- themselves, Again A. words just tent that I’ve indicated. —the Judge? Q. frequently And how did that occur best can JUDGE SPRAGUE: As Lokuta? Judge recall. there,
A. it Varying. Sometimes wasn’t two, other times it occur (N.T. 77-78). words, Again, my three times week. brethren on bench, and, again, not in the Dan reporter Court Coll testified: complimentary way. Coll, Mr. heard or taken you illus- JUDGE SPRAGUE: Can reporter part as a court as down trate it? your duty commen- negative official it A. How was done? tary by Judge Lokuta about court
administration or the President JUDGE SPRAGUE: Mimic it. or her workload? Well, Okay. brethren on the may
bench believe how done, I, working it should be frequently but as was how does she—does the judge from the 11th Judicial make comments related to District the Court of Common scheduling problems. I will ask that Pleas, it believe should done this be stricken. it
way, which is different tone. objection Your JUDGE SPRAGUE: (N.T. 636-37). just is sustained. Answer fre- just it all quency, and take about Cynthia Rachilla said: also time? Rachilla, Finally, Ms. could tell tone, volume, man- Court A. Correct. ner in which Judge Lokuta deliv- MR. BY PUSKAS: ered what I read from that last here, And besides what I have read transcript or Board Num- Exhibit other areas does she —what 11? ber cover in these commentaries? Again, goes por- when she on the tions where she speaks about the A. The include commentaries will responsibilities, at point she, inadequacy Prothonotary’s again, becomes louder. The word Office, just how files are not done thrust, said, becomes correctly they’re and she doesn’t— more a louder intonation. She be- fully there. There never was one comes more animated and has like point point where a clerk tried to the frustrated look on her face that stamp out to where a certain she’s so overburdened. there, missing she said was Q. How do frequently these commen- the clerk—she said it’s not on this taries occur her courtroom? copy. The Prothonotary’s Office say I can been, that wherever she’s doesn’t have the correct files. The whether was down Perm Place *71 clerks don’t turn to look around Building, over in Orphans’ in Court time, their correct to make sure the main building, that each time they’re there with their hand when her, assigned are so six to she hands the paper. them eight times, every time during that The Sheriffs Office there when isn’t week there bewill some comment security. needs her The in she clock about her accommodations at which- wrong the courtroom is and no one place regard- ever she is and either it, it has come to fix and makes it ing Prothonotаry, other her difficult to have if court don’t brethren, or any promulgations new it know what time is. The condition from judges. other —from on, in of the air her courtroom is it’s In the Penn Building, Place it was drafting down her back. all That’s accommodations, poor about her how (N.T. 670-73). right can think of now. they were and how she didn’t have Angela reporter Court Sallemi testified: right equipment, how courtroom inappropriate. In her courtroom you’ve time During the been courthouse, in the main it’s how she courtroom, Judge Lokuta’s have microphone system no has and how making negative observed her com- the air is— mentary depart- court about other object. complaining MR. SINATRA: I’m or ments about her responsive. She is not The question president judge? workload 1066 opportunity Did have an Yes. That a routine— Judge court-
you were Lokuta’s making room to com- observe occurrence in A. That was routine other mentary from bench about Judge courtroom. Lokuta’s She judges, or departments, court other pages on for self- go assignment? her own court remarks, serving criticiz- constantly A. Yes. recall— And, department. ing every other record, again, once it’s a court litigants other in the There were numerous incidents
courtroom, attorneys listening other there for PFA court when was charging to this are take who their Lokuta would bench, sit in a clients to have to courtroom and if she was late that why Judge always Lokuta is take the listening morning, she would harassed, put-upon or burdened or always bench and make a comment somebody and her state- fault. self-aggrandizing else’s ments, making self-serving many constant state- times she was that, again, derogatory ments once clients are comments about lawyers Conahan, being charged by their he the reason sitting why get in courtrooms whenever she she to the bench to couldn’t (N.T. 722-23). (N.T. hearings to do this. decides at her on time. 832-33). Attorney Virginia Murtha-Cowley testi- of these de- transcriptions, samples Six fied: orations, clamatory placed evi- were Well, waiting 20, a we would be 7-12). (Board Four Exhibits were dence get half hour. She would on the Exhibit 7 read into the record: Board bench, then, know, say she (N.T. (N.T. 576-84); Board Exhibit many things had other take care (N.T. 667-69); 660-66); Board Exhibit 11 be common. of. That would Or 729-40). These Board Exhibit get go she would on the bench and exemplify what the witnesses transcripts on for another 10 minutes or more Reading talking about. the words is about how—what her workload by Respondent open court one spoken by treated the other and how by thoroughly derog- first is startled their judges and the courts and *72 content, animosity atory the with know, usually— on and on. You on, Reading they are delivered. which however, soon becomes a tire- the exercise explaining also about were one, finally a reader finds himself some commentary that Lokuta Respondent. the embarrassed —for record. How would make the Respondent’s find that con We frequently would she make that testimony in set out described the duct commentary? kind of (Board transcripts in Exhib above and the Every time— 7-12) convincing evidence its is clear and of: of violation Every took the bench. time she 18(d)(1) V, Pennsyl- § 1. Article the (N.T. 1009-10). the conduct is Constitution for vania brings judicial that the office such Attorney Nancy Violi testified: sions, into disrepute charged “facilitating” in far from the efforts of Count 2; and judges other and court officials to fulfill 3B.(1) responsibilities, their intended to ac- 2. were Canon of the of Judicial Code complish opposite. digressions the These Conduct. public Respondent’s took disaffection with We will discuss findings these the system perceived the court and the dis- they
order are listed above. criminatory receiving treatment she was president judge. digres- from the These brings judicial Conduct which the captive sions were delivered to audiences disrepute. office into do, composed of people business excursions, These elocutionary em frequency they and with such became upon repeatedly by barked Respondent, Sallemi). “routine.” commonly upon delivered opening the court occupancy normally when courtroom We hold that this conduct of peaks, inappropriate, intemperate 3B.(1) a violation of Canon of the Code and uncalled for. They respect show no of Judicial Conduct.
for the offices of president judge and, court administrator more than F. THE ADONIZIO INCIDENT
that, they frankly are contemptuous of Findings of Fact those Probably offices. impor most
tant observation provoked by review graduated 40. Maureen Gushanas from speeches these abys is that an show community college and then took a job mal judgment. lack of This conduct was Pennsylvania with the Regional Tissue extreme within meaning of that word transplant Bank she worked as a where expressed in opinions our in In re Cicchet coordinator for years. five She then re- ti, In re Trkula and the other cases cited training University ceived at Jefferson earlier in our discussion of what conduct it Hospital Philadelphia in the vision field brings judicial which office into dis and did eye volunteer work for a lens bank repute. We find that this conduct of Re transplants. for corneal She then worked spondent is such brings judicial Hospital at Wilkes-Barre capacity some office into disrepute only that, it was operating Respon- room. She met —not designed office, to bring judicial indeed Respondent’s dent when mother had sur- the entire Common Pleas Court of Lu- gery Hospital. at Wilkes-Barre After County, zerne into disrepute. meeting Respondent’s she took care of mother until she died in December 2000. 3B.(1) 2. Canon of Judicial Code She continued work Wilkes-Barre Conduct. Hospital Respon- until March 2001 when The pertinent language tipstaff, Flaherty, dent’s Judith left that Canon 3B.(1) is: employment. On March 2001 Gusha- Respondent’s tip- nas commenced work as
Judges should ... per- facilitate the *73 staff. She has that position held formance of the responsi- administrative (N.T.1901-05 Gushanas). present. judges bilities of other and court offi- cials. 41. Theresa Hannon is the executive up any secretary Augello It would be hard to call course of for Judge Joseph antagonistic conduct which would be more of Luzerne Court Common Pleas Coun- ty. to the than injunction position years of the Canon that She has held that for 30 10, digres- described this record. These 2004. On employed and was so on June 1068 10, day
that in her office in court- working was located on June 2004 she was Judge third floor of the courthouse and she room 4 where was con- Conahan phone early ducting received a call in the afternoon criminal she heard a court when from Maureen if asking shouting Gushanas P.J. female outside the courtroom. Adonizio Judge “go her office. She told Gu- her Conahan asked outside shanas that he and told her he was see what was on because there was a in the court shouting.” administration office. Hannon female outside the courtroom then to court Judge please went administration and told asked Klinefelter to Conahan looking keep trying Adonizio that Lokuta was tell them to it down he was for him. At that time Adonizio told Han- to conduct court. Klinefelter then went non that he didn’t have right the time now into the corridor and that is when she was (N.T. because he had to take his to the aware of it was. 446-48 Kline- wife who (N.T. Hannon). Conahan). 380-81, felter; doctor’s. 393-94 N.T. 456 42. Theresa Hannon was a witness 48. Michelle Klinefelter was witness (N.T. (N.T. the Adonizio incident. 379^104 Han- to the Adonizio incident. 446-54 non). Klinefelter). presently deputy Harold Refowich is em- 49. Peter J. Adonizio court is
ployed County County. the Luzerne Domestic administrator of Luzerne He has (N.T. Department. Relations On position June 2004 held that since 2000. 346 Adonizio). employed by Jury he was Board of County. Luzerne On that he date 10, 2004, 50. On June at about 1:30
working jury in the board office which was p.m. he in his office on the third floor located on the third floor of the courthouse County talking of the Luzerne Courthouse near the Adonizio incident took where (N.T. Adonizio; to the staff. N.T. 380 (N.T. Refowich). place. 405-08 Hannon). 44. Harold Refowich was witness 51. At time Maureen Gushanas (N.T. the Adonizio incident. 405-25 Refo- entered the office and announced to Adoni- wich). “Judge zio in a loud voice that Lokuta (N.T. employed
45. Michael Onderko is as a to see now.” 348 Adoni- wants Hannon). zio; tipstaff Judge Joseph Augello. He N.T. has 381-82 position years. held that for 17 On June that he 52. Adonizio told Gushanas 10, 2004 he off stepped the elevator on couldn’t see her now and told Gushanas third floor of the and immedi- courthouse hallway if into step she would out ately upon came P.J. Adonizio and Mau- why. he would tell her Gushanas did and step reen Gushanas. Adonizio was a or Adonizio told her that his wife had recent- Onderko; with back to Gu- away two his had a breast removed due to cancer and ly (N.T. shanas was front of Adonizio. post-operative appoint- first his wife’s Onderko). 426-27 oncologist ment was scheduled with going with her to 46. Michael Onderko was a witness to 15 minutes and he was (N.T. that he incident. 426-46 On- the doctor. He told Gushanas Adonizio derko). meet Lokuta when he (N.T. Adonizio; N.T. got back. 348-351 presently 47. Michelle Klinefelter Refowich). employed deputy as a sheriff of Luzerne said in a loud County. position She has held that for six 53. Maureen Gushanas telling In “I’m not her that.” years. early and a half afternoon voice *74 1069 Adonizio). cally 352-58 said “fine” and Maureen Gushanas Re- Adonizio threaten spondent started that toward elevators. At Respondent
point appeared front of At during episode 60. no time this did 4 courtroom which Adonizio have to would any physical Adonizio contact with (N.T. way pass on his to the elevator. (N.T. Respondent or Gushanas. 357 Adonizio). Respondent angrily 358-54 de- Adonizio; Hannon; N.T. 387 N.T. 411 Re- manded that Adonizio meet with her. fowich; Onderko; N.T. 434 N.T. 449-50 (N.T. Refowich; 4104111 N.T. 449 Kline- Klinefelter). felter). Adonizio Respondent asked if she 61. After and Re- Maureen Gushanas 7, step into courtroom would which was spondent chambers, Respon- returned to nearby, he explain that he couldn’t dent a letter President wrote meet right with her now because of his complaining Conahan of Adonizio’s con- (N.T. appointment. wife’s doctor’s 354-55 variously duct which she described “in- Adonizio; Refowich). N.T. 410 “unwarranted,” appropriate,” “physically 54. Adonizio did not want to his discuss intimidating,” “menacing threatening,” and wife’s medical in the courthouse condition confrontive,” “intentionally “physically me- (N.T. rotunda, public space. 356 Adoni- nacing,” unacceptable” “offensive and and zio). public In “unbefitting employee.” 55. Respondent continued demand letter she also stated that “Mr. Adonizio’s meet immediately Adonizio with her publicly berating included actions and loudly proclaimed displeasure and screaming Gushanas, at Maureen and this respect Adonizio’s failure to show her Jurist.” She demanded the president judge she was due as a of the Court. “appropriate disciplinary take ac- (N.T. 410-11, 422, 424, Refowich; N.T. against tions Deputy Court Administrator Lokuta). 2953 protection Adozinio [Adonizio] Respondent
56. staff, then began running myself, my employ- other courthouse around, around, (Board 5). jumping arms waving ees and visitors.” Exhibit She (N.T. 354, Adonizio), 356-57 screaming, copies sent of the letter to each of the harassing me, “he is get away County him from Luzerne Commissioners as well as (N.T. me,” Pines, or words to that effect. 354-55 to Zygmont “Pennsylvania Court Adonizio; 385, 382, (Board 5). Hannon; N.T. N.T. Administrator.” Exhibit Refowich). 408-11 allegations 62. All in Respon- 57. yelling screaming This attract- president judge dent’s letter to the ed the attention of a number of other false, testimony as was the Respondent viz., people, Hannon, Theresa Re- Harold relating and Gushanas Adonizio inci- fowich, Onderko, Judge Michael Conahan (N.T. dent, 2805-28, Lokuta; 2901-61 N.T.
and Michelle Klinefelter. Gushanas) including testimony 2026-43 Respondent alleging Gushanas yelling
58. This screaming contin- Adonizio had committed assault and bat- ued until the opened elevator doors on the tery causing on Gushanas to her bruises third floor Gushanas shouted “Clear (N.T. 2812-14, Lokuta; arm. 2924-26 Respondent got the elevator!” and she and Gushanas). N.T.2026-43 Adonizio; on the elevator. N.T. Onderko). Hannon;
390-91 N.T. 434 photo- introduced a 59. At during episode graph no time purportedly of Gushanas taken June Adonizio shout or physi- Respondent’s shortly raise his voice or 2004 in chambers *75 1070 control incident, shouting, screaming, out of and purportedly- the Adonizio
after court- showing by causing noisy Adonizio. commotion outside bruises inflicted (N.T.2044-46 Gushanas, R-351; Exhibit room 4. Lokuta, R- 2826, 2928-49 Exhibit N.T. happened as it Adonizio We find
351).
photograph
She also introduced a
and Onderko
and Hannon and Refowich
showing a
purportedly
her own arm
bruise
it
and not
happened,
Klinefelter said
and
hit
on the
acquired
she
her elbow
said it
way Respondent
the
and Gushanas
try-
or on the
cooler while
elevator
water
on
finding is based
happened. This
Mr.
ing
escape
from
Adonizio.
testimony
the
things including
number of
2816-19, 2825-26,
Gushanas; N.T,
2046
proceedings
the
of those who witnessed
Lokuta).
2925, 3359-63
as follows:
which was
R-
in Exhibit
Any
bruises shown
the
Maureen Gushanas described
arms of Maureen Gushanas
351
the
episode as follows:
during
Respondent were
caused
and,
incident on June
2004
Adonizio
an incident in June
Do
recall
by
caused
particularly,
most
were not
involving a Peter Adonizio?
by Mr. Adonizio on
battery
assault and
Yes,
I do.
Maureen Gushanas.
hap-
you tell
Court what
Can
Discussion
pened?
before, most
recent
We
said
(Pa.Ct.
Whittaker,
in In
most consideration saw or heard what mony those who purpose? for what Q. Okay. And credibility and the of those wit happened, A. To find P.J. Adonizio. nesses. hap- Q. Describe to Court In this seven testified case witnesses pened. they and heard: five were to what saw Well, off eleva- got and judge (including deputy by the Board presented halfway down tor and walked we Adonizio, administrator one of court Burns, into Ann hall and we ran incident), pre- in the two were participants ad- deputy court is one of who Respondent (Respondent sented ministrators. Gushanas, both of Maureen whom were if judge asked Ann Burns And participants). was, be- P.J. Adonizio where knew pre- are of this incident Two versions no calling and one cause we’ve been are, in ir- every respect, sented and meeting. us, to a got back relevant version seeks Respondent’s reconcilable. said, sure, judge, he’s in And Ann Adonizio us that was who to convince administration, right court which was threatening screaming, yelling the hall. down intimidating Respondent physically go get me had asked And physically assault- Gushanas and who him. So did. to her arm. causing bruising ed Gushanas into ad- court And when I walked hand, Adonizio’s version On other ministration, me. his back was toward day, on that us that seeks convince him, P.J. —and he said yelling, and Gushanas were *76 this, said, ing, you away looked like and then he did an- as some 20 feet said, judge you other take —I like to from him. Would show the Court you see exactly happened? chambers. my
And at that point, grabbed he A. He came after her like this. arm— Q. Okay. you up practically And ended Q. your grabbed Who the “he” who knocking me over on face.
arm? up? he Where did end A. P.J. Adonizio. A. place, knocking judge The same Q. grab your How did he arm? over. Very
A. hard. It was like a vice. JUDGE SPRAGUE: You have to Q. Go ahead. speak up.
A. And he drаgged me. was walk- (Continuing) place, just A. The same ing, but he held on to me and was very close to the judge, almost
pulling me out of court administra- knocking her over. tion, in the hall. my arm, And he held on to and he Q. By way, when Mr. Adonizio had put face, his finger my and he said arm, your said, of you hold in a me, I’m sick and tired of her send- what, grip, anything, vice-like if ing you up here get me. I can’t you say to him? meet today. My with her wife has a go my A. Please let arm. appointment. doctor’s Where is she? Q. Did eventually go he leave said, P.J., please go my let arm. arm? said, And he Where is she? Where Yes, go when he turned to find the is she? I’ll tell myself. her There judge. she is. Q. Now, can tell the Court what At point which he turned and he happened next? went, taking giant steps, charging to Well, judge judge. he went to the And he went after her. He was going fast, I very judge. so couldn’t came close to the And keep up. even
he, said, her, like I I can’t said meet today. My wife has tone, And what was the manner and appointment. a doctor’s She had a volume this individual he mastectomy. you? made those comments to shouting. But he was He was screaming. He was echoing screaming top lungs. of his throughout the rotunda. her, And he said to on. Come Come go on. want Courtroom 7. walking And described him in a BY MR. SINATRA: purposeful way the judge. towards happened What next? going And I’m to ask an Klinefelter, again. guess actress And I I’m not a depu- Michelle who is sheriff, quite you, ty 15 feet from but it will have came out of Courtroom would, adjusting to do. If can Number 4. show And she was Court how Mr. Adonizio approached earpiece and she had radio on down, the judge day? turning She stand- her side that she said, guess, Butchko, What’s the other Butchko Lisa here? and Amanda Ankner. said, harassing
And he’s me. MR. SINATRA: That’s A-n-k-n-e-r just kept screaming. And P.J. and B-u-t-c-h-k-o. said, judge, just go.... let’s THE WITNESS: Yes. *77 (N.T.2026^0). BY MR. SINATRA: episode described the as fol- Q. Go ahead.
lows: JUDGE SPRAGUE: It’s clear this is Can tell this Court in own being not offered for the truth of happened respect words what with said, being just what’s but to under- to Mr. on June 2004? Adonizio stand what it is that then did. A. A involving situation arose two my summer interns. These were MR. SINATRA: That’s correct. young they two women. And were Your Honor. go asked to into a room four with said, Honor, They sorry Your we’re they men interrogated and were late, running up- we’re but we went as— and stairs we were told that we had MR. Objection. PUSKAS: If he’s go to into a room. There were four asking about the incident with the men All young girls there. or administration, deputy court this isn’t young brought interns were into
it. the room. There no men Well, fact, MR. SINATRA: it is. there other than gen- the four older background It’s a to occurred. girls tlemen. And the told me that JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. they they were criticized as to how
were dressed. I (Continuing) non-jury had a trial I, at that if point, they asked them day. a bench trial on that could their own recollection write There was confusion as to where I place, what took because didn’t and one of the witnesses were trial, delay want to but I knew attorneys. responsible that I for these was two individuals. And I not aware and was young I asked the if two women given any type had not been notice of they go upstairs to the third meeting anyone. floor speak the court adminis- if, they trator to see had told perhaps, concluded, After the trial and it was go witnesses to to a different trial, rapidly was rather brief was courtroom. concluded, I sat them. down with
They came back. I about they And described to me these who ready to take the bench. I did not four individuals—who when delay proceedings. And want thought they by descrip- were. And noticeably the two women were shak- tion, name, I out that found en. McGarry (ph) one Mr. and one said, Honor, McGarry Mr.
They Your we’d like to was Mr. P.J. Adonizio. administrator, something. talk to about One is a court but he works girl probation little of them. services. Mr. Adonizio were two —there Ankner, is a court deputy One was—her name administrator. said,
I allowed the I girls go yes, to lunch. And she think in court he’s personal I—because of the na- administration. ture of this and because of the sensi- Gushanas, said, I asked Maureen it, tive nature of personally made Maureen, you please go could ask calls, trying what, any- to find out if downstairs, P.J. to meet like me I’d thing, had taken place, because I was speak to him. told there type meeting. responsi- knew that was ... And I’d ask describe to well-being ble for the of these two the Court where went and what individuals. happened. Lokuta, JUDGE SPRAGUE: spoke *78 initially. Ann Burns We we do need a speech. not whole exchanged pleasantries.... THE Okay. WITNESS: Q. happened next? What JUDGE SPRAGUE: This of- just fered to have a little understand-
ing as the background, because the A. (Continuing) I turned in the di- question was really happened what rection of sound. I And saw you between and Mr. Adonizio. I’d Maureen Gushanas P.J. Adoni- you ask question. answer that zio. Yes,
THE WITNESS: Your Honor. A. (Continuing) My calls were not be- Q. next? happened What
ing returned. I waited till approxi- A. say, I heard P.J. Adonizio tell I’ll mately 1:20 upstairs and went myself. her I’m sick and tired of the elevator with Maureen Gusha- sending you her for her meet nas, by identification, by because me, or to that effect. with words description— Q. tone, was the manner What and vol- BY MR. SINATRA: of Mr. ume Adonizio? Q. I’d like to take the Court loud, A. The tone was boisterous. The through what happened. Right manner the angry. now, we’re back in June 2004 and Q. happened What next? we riding up are the elevator. And A. I looked. I saw P.J. Adonizio I want to take this Court had left arm his left Maureen’s through what happened. right pointing hand. His hand was A. Maureen and I Gushanas went off face, in her within inches of the elevator. very There were few nose. people around. It was a national P.J., say, I heard Maureen take day mourning because President my hand off Don’t me. touch Reagan lying in state. arm. Burns, I and I looked saw that Ann Q. Okay. who is another deputy court adminis-
trator, said, point, was down the hall. I he there is. went At Ann, said, over Mrs. I marching Burns and And he toward started do know where P.J. Adonizio is? me. next? Now he’s “marching,” happened What say, When can him, you. you say And front
be an actress and show the Court in an dif- problem there a effort to happened? happened? fuse the What situation. down, IMay step THE WITNESS: He screaming at me. A. He started Honor? Your said, Yeah, I yeah. problem. a Sure. JUDGE SPRAGUE: My had problem. I have wife in the standing foreground I was then stopped. a mastec—and he moving here. He started toward mastectomy. had I can’t She And march. stomp me in a deliberate at this exactly, remember because BY MR. SINATRA: just terribly frightened. point was Q. Okay. said, said, I’m yeah. He Yeah. He got A. He inches of me. within this, And I and tired of to me. sick said, P.J., in that speak to me don’t Q. Okay. fashion. said, P.J., prob- And do we have a trying What were to do? lem? was scared. that was way diffusing thought what I him. trying inflame explosive an situation. enraged. totally He was And was *79 anything that I trying to do Court, Q. you I like to show the so that he lash out could wouldn’t here, also, you’re you while said any further at me. he by that he had her arm and finger had his in her face. Would
you exactly show the sudden, Court ... all of he point, At one recall seeing? ap- stopped. deputy And a sheriff out the court- peared. She came A. (demonstrating). Yes had al- of the situation room. Most Q. Okay. ready by time place taken He A. much closer. was like He was had a deputy arrived. She sheriff this. device, radio, guess I and hearing Q. Okay. taking it and it out. adjusting was she bigger, A. too. And he’s said, on here? And she what’s Q. You Okay. can return. said, harassing And I P.J. is me. (Witness stand.) A. returns to Q. deputy Did know this sheriff? Q. literally about an inch of So within by sight, I knew her but A.
her nose— name. A. Yes. Deputy Q. Do know now Sheriff Klinefelter? Q. body his finger, his was —with (N.T. 2805-18). well? very Klinefelter, close her as yes. A. into And body moving A. her. His was contrast, Han- Theresa conspicuous In away he point, at one broke then from phоne after the call non testified that he me he started saw about P.J. inquiring Gushanas Maureen marching me. charging and toward whereabouts, down went Adonizio’s hall to court administration couldn’t across Maureen was behind. She looking terribly I told Adonizio that was him. And was keep up with and then: for him frightened. I Q.
A. ... stood in approximately Court Administration. And how close was talking I was girls one of the he to Maureen Gushanas?
there. leaving And as he was They maybe apart. A. were two feet office, Maureen Gushanas com- was Q. Did he touch her? ever ing doorway looking for him. my knowledge. A. Not to I didn’t see I say overheard her Lo- lay him a hand on her. kuta wanted to see him right now. Q. happened What next? here, he if you said come out I sudden, A. All ungod- of a I heard this now, don’t have the time right and I outburst, ly thought was a you why. will tell defendant or a screaming victim Q. me you: Let ask What was Mau- me, harassing he’s harassing he’s Mr, reen Gushanas’s tone to Adoni- me, get away him from me. zio? Where were at that time? Very A. loud. standing in the Court Admin- MR. object. SINATRA: I coming istration. out JUDGE proceeding SPRAGUE: Overruled. door to go back to office. very loud. BY MR. PUSKAS: right. All So when observed you give Can example Court an Maureen Gushanas and Mr. Adoni- of how she said that to the best of zio, you on the looking outside your recollection? in? PJ, wants to see immedi- looking the outside out. ately. And Mr. Adonizio said I *80 standing right was doorway now, don’t have time right and I will looking at them. explain you why I don’t. Q. left, they they When pro- where did Q. "What was his manner towards Gu- ceed? shanas? A. They proceeded go around the MR. I SINATRA: want the record to corner. And they got around reflect may while tone of voice corner, that is when I heard this insistent, have fairly been that cer- ungodly screaming. tainly was not loud. We heard counsel louder in this courtroom. Q. you paying Were attention to them JUDGE emphatic SPRAGUE: was away the whole time walked certainly above the normal level you because you mentioned heard of speaking. question The was what something? Mr. was Adonizio’smanner. Yes, A. I was.
BY MR. PUSKAS: Q. Please continue with testimo- Q. What was Mr. Adonizio’s manner ny.
toward Maureen Gushanas? A. I heard ungodly screaming just A. He said in a you me, normal tone if somebody saying harassing he’s step outside, explain me, I will harassing get away he’s him why I Judge right cannot see the proceeded from me. And Iwhen come, now. stop did a dead because I Judge my saw that was Lokuta A. I just proceed who towards office. I saying that. turned around and went around the way my other office. Q. appear you? And how did she Q. you lay Did ever see Mr. Adonizio Very A. irrational. She like Judge hand on Lokuta? screaming turning and— No,
A. I did not. Q. him lay Did ever see a hand on Q. Please describe what observed. Maureen Gushanas? A. walking proceeding When was to- (N.T. 381-87). No, A. I did not. office, wards I had seen that it Lokuta, Judge she was Harold that he Refowich testified person screaming. who was And I working in office the third floor of his around, pacing saw her like going the courthouse when: just around and throwing hands I heard some loud noises in the up. harassing He’s me. hallway. I heard female voices Q. doing? What was Mr. Adonizio talking very yelling very loudly. — reaction, I stepped And as a natural Judge, He said if step out the office to see what was here, I explain you why will happening. you. can’t see out, you stepped When what did Q. What was her response? observe? away A. Get away from me. Get from tipstaff saw Lokuta and her me. coming hallway, Maureen down the Q. Approximately apart how far walking and I saw Peter J. Adonizio they at the time this was on? towards elevator. A. Maybe ten feet. Q. And their location would have been? yelling. You testified that heard A. Right courtroom four. yelling? Who was Did other individu- observe It was either Lokuta or her inals the area? tipstaff. distinguish couldn’t be- *81 I tween the two voices because A. There one of our Sheriffs. was don’t either one of them know well enough distinguish. Q. mentioned, you The Sheriff that Q. you What interaction did observe you where did see the Sheriff come and Mr. Judge between Lokuta from? Adonizio? A. She came out of courtroom number four. You can ask JUDGE SPRAGUE: Q. you Did know who the sheriff was? Sir, you hear question and move on. A. I her first name knew her Mi- you these noises and went out to see chelle. what; correct? what was Q. at What did observe that time? A. correct. That’s just A. She said to keep down. Go on from JUDGE SPRAGUE: Q. exactly there and tell us what happened What next? observed, day what heard and Mr. what he encountered Adonizio and was on. Maureen Gushanas that: A. I Judge Judge trying observed the A. Adonizio Loku- Mr. ask — demanding step hearing
ta that Maureen to out of the would be— Mr. distance so that he tell her Adonizio meet with her. And could something. refusing And she was response Mr. Adonizio’s he go very important anywhere had a move at that appointment —to to, point. to take his wife and that he had building, leave the and it was something And heard said from
very important. It awas medical Mr. Adonizio about And his wife. appointment, and that he couldn’t then heard statement made that meet with her that time. But he harassing are me. gladly would meet her at an- Q. made that Who statement? place other time and her choos- A. Maureen Gushanas. ing. couldn’t that par- be at Mr. Q. To Adonizio? ticular time. Mr. To Adonizio. BY MR. PUSKAS: Q. What was tone and manner Q. What was Mr. Adonizio’s manner in when she said that? talking to Judge Lokuta? It was a loud voice. say His manner Iwas would frus- Q. happened after What that? trated and kind of almost defensive get
that need point out of here. A. At that if I right, This remember very important. I need to Mr. Adonizio take turned towards the my wife to the doctor. maybe elevator and like took one step it. towards And he either seen what Judge about Lokuta? way over his shoulder or the he was Judge Lokuta angry, seemed to be standing toward elevator that upset and almost offended that he Judge coming Lokuta was from his think not—I I heard some- left, coming which would be from thing to the effect that she be courtroom four him. towards the respect shown that was due a Court, Judge of the and he wasn’t
showing respect by her that walking ... And did observe then?
away from her and getting on the A. The moving forward elevator and leave. that direction. heard saying.
loud whatever she was Did Mr. observe Adonizio make catch the first words. physical contact with Lo- And then up past when she come *82 kuta? light the next as she walking was No, A. sir. direction, that the courtroom door Q. you him Did observe make opened, yelled a sheriff come out and
physical contact with Maureen Gu- to hold the noise—to hold the noise shanas? down. (N.T. 408-12). No,
A. sir. Q. doing? Mr. What was Adonizio standing Michael Onderko testified that when he A. Just there when he got off the floor stepped elevator on third that from the forward elevator Q. I Do recall that incident? you
close to the same area first seen him at. A. Yes. tell Q. you please the Court Could happened next?
Q. What at that time? you where were coming the Judge A. As was forward four A. I in courtroom number was myself towards Mr. Adonizio and Judge Conahan. Deputy Gushanas, and Maureen the Sheriff proceedings there on at Q. Were behind And I heard right was her. time? that harassing her state he’s me to the Yes, A. there was. And that as they Sheriff. was were coming forward.... Q. proceed. happened? And What courtroom, standing
A. As I was Q. you did about Mr. What observe go me to Judge Conahan advised
Adonizio’s manner or tone towards going on outside and see what was Judge Lokuta or Gusha- Maureen there a female outside because was nas? And he shouting. courtroom you them to please said will tell just Mr. seemed like he A. Adonizio leave, trying it down? I’m con- keep he wanted to and was normal duсt court. speaking. voice you Q. you anything hear Did while in the courtroom? loud Judge A. And the was at point yet. And I know Maureen shouting. is A. Just a female That it. I yelled clear elevator. Like said, Judge surprised I was do? Q. And what
Mundy getting the elevator the courtroom doors. went outside at point. off as I courtroom opened BY MR. PUSKAS: doors, keep I went to tell them to it Did see Mr. Adonizio make ever Judge because Conahan was down Judge physical contact Lokuta? with And that trying to conduct court. A. No. when was aware who was. physical Did see him make con- it? Q. And who was tact Maureen with Gushanas? Judge and P.J. Adon- Lokuta (N.T. 429-84). A. No. izio. Klinefelter, dispatched by Michelle happening observe What did to deal the distur- Judge Conahan came out? courtroom,19 bance outside his testified: yelling she was observed like to attention Q. would draw tell her him, trying he 2004. Did observe June something. Peter Adonizio an incident between Lokuta? you please specifically, Q. Could — him? Yes, yelling at was she did. investigate deputies to holding it. he and sent one Conahan testified *83 455-56). 4 and heard criminal court in courtroom hallway going in the "loud on outside ruckus" date, shouting Q. particular She was towards me he’s And on this something happen unusual at the harassing away me. Get him from Courthouse? me. And then I don’t know the dispute prior coming was to me A. Yes. out of the I courtroom. don’t know. Q. Judge Lokuta? Involving Q. doing? What was Mr. Adonizio A. Yes. standing
A. He was like in front Q. right. happened All first? What along courtroom with her. He was your You in office. saying you just to her can’t listen you just
me? I Can’t listen to me? stay. stay. can’t I can’t A. On the third floor of the courthouse. standing talking I there to the Q. you And did you observe—what did Judge tipstaff staff. And Lokuta’s observe about Mr. Adonizio’s de- Maureen Gushanas came in. It’s an meanor and manner? open doorway. hallway. It is a A. He seemed like he had tears his Judge She came in and said Lokuta eyes or something. Like he was you wants to see now. And I turned upset. to her and said I can’t do that. And I Q. And what did observe about here, if you step said will out Mau- Judge Lokuta’s demeanor and man- reen, I explain you why. will ner?
A. She angry seemed about some- stepped We out into the hall near I thing. don’t know what situa- podium, and I told her I said tion was about then. Maureen, my wife had her breast due to Today removed cancer. Q. Did Adonizio make observe Mr. my appointment. oncology first any physical contact with Lo- my And I was to meet in the wife kuta? oncologist’s parking lot the next ten or fifteen minutes. A. No. will meet Lokuta when
Q. Did Mr. Adonizio make observe back, get go but I have to to this anybody contact with else appointment wife. that corridor? (N.T. 447-50).
A. No. ... happened What next? P.J. Adonizio testified that: asking A. With Maureen are me? Adonizio, Q. Mr. like to draw telling She said I’m not her that. attention to June 2004. Do you giving an recall this date? What was her—are example? A. Yes. Yes, I am. Where were at that time? MR. Let the record reflect PUSKAS: in the Courthouse. was talking very that Mr. Adonizio is loud. office. Court Administrator’s frame, particular object
This time MR. I am SINATRA: about 1:80 in the to the characterization. afternoon. *84 Counsel, I think A. I moved closer to her. said
JUDGE SPRAGUE: it Judge, please explain. was a fair characterization. Contin- let me And I ue why on. to tell her I couldn’t wanted In point.
meet with her at that her rambling, harassing he’s me. Get BY MR. PUSKAS: away him me an from me. You owe Adonizio, Q. Mr. continue. way. apology talking to me that telling A. I’m not that. I said fíne. that, I stood there in disbelief first go way my And I started to this of all— in front right, which would be object I am going MR. SINATRA: way. podium coming this this to the witness’s editorialization. you say JUDGE SPRAGUE: When JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. coming way, you mean the di- Continue. rection of the elevator? Q. point, At Klinefelter Sheriff Honor, around, yes,
A. it Your bends Keep came out of courtroom four. it the elevator.... towards out down. She was sent out—I find Judge later —from Conahan who Q. Please continue. Bench. was on the A. point, Judge ap- At Lokuta object MR. SINATRA: I am peared. he found out later. what Q. come from? What direction did she JUDGE Just relate what SPRAGUE: way hallway. This down happened. observed and what depicted Is that of the exhib- keep She came out and said down its? Judge here she realized it was right A. Yes.... She in front of myself standing Lokuta and there. four, courtroom which Judge Lokuta and Maureen Gusha- In right big there. between the two point nas at this moved over to the light pillars, that is courtroom four. And Maureen Gushanas elevators. yells clear the in that elevators Q. Please continue. same boisterous voice. said, if point Judge, A. At that seven, I step into courtroom will will Adonizio, approximately Mr. Q. And you why I can’t meet with explain what the distance between you right now. during that en- Lokuta Lokuta do? what counter? way. talk to me that said Don’t jumping around. we She When she started to run Judge, and other, each it was first encountered around here a circle within 15 feet. And then I moved about said first proximity where closer, kept running but around. she her. He is came contact with around, you say running ex- When him harassing away me. Get from you can even actly was—if me, demonstrate, doing? what was the record reflect MR. PUSKAS: Let harassing me. He’s very harassing loud- A. He’s yelling that Mr. Adonizio is standing I’m there like me. And ly. *85 Honor, Your just this: me A. Judge let ex- Lokuta and Maureen went plain why yelled to can’t meet over. Maureen clear the with left, They right now. elevators. and I was standing there. Q. you, Thank Mr. Adonizio. thereafter, I Shortly got the ele- MR. PUSKAS: Let the record reflect down, my got and went car vator Mr. Adonizio left the stand witness appointment and to the went and jumping erratically. (N.T. 347-58). wife. MR. object SINATRA: am accept Our decision to Adonizio’sversion
to the characterization and editoriali- reject Respondent’s and to an version was zation. He did what he did. He ran easy at decision make for least around. It is obvious she trying followingreasons: object to avoid him. to the charac- Adonizio, Hannon, terization and ask that it be stricken. 1. P.J. Theresa Ha- Refowieh, rold Michael Onderko and Mi- JUDGE SPRAGUE: The Court will are chelle Klinefelter credible witnesses it describe as jumping around. Go story. who tell a credible In contrast Re- ahead. spondent and Gushanas not are credible MR. PUSKAS: Thank you. story that, nor tell. they is More than JUDGE SPRAGUE: With arms wav- Hannon, Refowieh, and Onderko Klinefel- ing. and, ter opposed were observers of— MR. you, PUSKAS: Thank Your Respondent Gushanas, and not partici- Honor. pants incident, and, they op- in—the —as posed BY MR. to Respondent PUSKAS: and Gushanas —have personal no stake in we what decide.20 Did ever make physical contact There is absolutely no reason tous find with Judge Lokuta? testimony their but anything truthful. A. No. 2. We it highly improbable find Did every physical make con- Adonizio, Mr. a deputy court administra- tact with Maureen Gushanas? tor, “physically would menace” a judge;
A. No. yell that he would and scream her “at Q. While Judge Lokuta running lungs,” so top loudly his that “it was around, you doing what? echoing rotunda”; throughout that he standing Just there like this with physically commit assault and bat- open Judge, explain. let me — tery judge’s tipstaff21 by “grab- on the That is all I could get out because bing” her by the left wrist with his left screaming. she was holding hand and “like it a vice” at the do after this inci- pointing right same time his hand in her dent, immediately after nose,”22 it? You face “within inches of her and said the Deputy Sheriff came out “dragging” her out of court administration everybody quiet? asked hallway.23 into the Respondent disputes 20. this and we improbability will treat 22. The of this maneuver will quickly apparent anyone become who tries infra. perform it. presence And in the to—not large very 23. Maureen is a Gushanas woman. mention several other witnesses. appears young healthy. She She would by hand, perceived transgrеssions story report
On the other told personnel an actu- and the other is court administration Adonizio witnesses —if sure, occurred, especially To be the behavior improbable. transgression had al bizarre, Respondent which describe no doubt battery, there is an assault *86 least; however, say Respondent was the been reported.26 have would inveterate hater of court administration an on cross-ex- When confronted with this anyone connected with it.24 She was and amination, Respondent difficulty deal- had on excuse to ever the lookout ing with it. We illustrate: (or “grievance” another what document here. your take look at letter Q. Let’s such). Furthermore, perceived as she she long.... very It’s not quick to at anger well known to be not any sign being Now, stop that she accorded if that first sen- we respect judged tence, Lokuta, as she Judge the full measure of described thing disputed conduct, in was due.25 One not deputy she his the court adminis- the descriptions action on trator, physically all and as unwarranted doing actions, third is that Adonizio wasn’t intimidating floor correct? demanding he do. Respondent was A. Yes. If saying do later. He he would him say anything about Q. You don’t character, going to in Respondent was act acting on actually out physically going always if to act as she she was sentence, you? do anyone perceived disrespect, she was when she A. No. angry. get go sen- right. Let’s next All testimony Respon- We 3. believe tence. and commit- dent Gushanas that Adonizio on battery of assault and
ted crime reason which is false for another Gushanas sentence, Now, here in that second telling. particularly find we again, you Mr. Adonizio’s describe Respondent That is: in the letter reason conduct, menacing engaging “by re- immediately wrote to Conahan threatening actions.” and incident, battery assault and porting that with me that you agree Do mentioned. In that letter physi- him says actually about nothing dif- Adonizio’s misbehavior 10 described acting out on either or. cally designed persuade ways ferent —all Gushanas? then-tipstaff, Maureen ac- “disciplinary to take president think, total, Well, that’s what no against him. We have doubt tions” connoting. it’s assaulted and if Mr. Adonizio had Well, this sen- asking I’m about Maureen Gushanas battered tence, in menac- Judge, “engaging Respondent was been in the letter. have threatening actions.” ing identify, document alert industrious "Judge.” That very angry if was called "drag,” especially she very if she difficult to cooperating. good enough. It had to be "Your wasn’t wasn’t Sammon; N.T. 1328-29 Honor.” fact, a matter She denied this. As never Youngclaus). 7-12). (See proclaimed it. Board Exhibits reported only in the letter was it not 26.Not testimony about this. is full of 25. This record Conahan, "reported.” it was never being reported as offended even was She agree You would ployee, with me that that and I find it to be offensive does not connote physically acting unacceptable.” out somebody? agree You would me that that A. That sentence may alone not con- says nothing sentence about Mr.
note that. physically acting Adonizio out on ei- Q. Okay. ther or Maureen Gushasnas? entirety— Read in its about physically menacing. talks you, Judge. Thank guess So I it in one could define way. on, Judge
JUDGE SPRAGUE: Come Lokuta. already instructed Lokuta, Q. Judge says, “intention- *87 you to answer. This is cross-examina- ally physically confrontive and me- tion. It appropriate is answer nacing.” question. Intentionally physically menacing Counsel very specific. has been context, could be read in that is going through He’s this letter sen- trying say. I’m tence sentence. You can deal— you menacing So believe means that your entirety counsel can—with the somebody actually physically you want. touched someone? But the question, answer which is intentionally physically believe taking the second sentence. Does the menacing may amount to that. And second specifically say sentence there am in response measured physical was a assault in the sense of this letter. I’m trying pro- to be as touching? fessional and as measured this. THE No, WITNESS: it does not. my hope Because it was still that MR. you, PUSKAS: Thank Your some of these matters could have Honor. been resolved.27 BY MR. PUSKAS: JUDGE Just so are SPRAGUE: we go sentence, Let’s to the third Your clear, Lokuta, Judge you’re saying, in says, Honor. “Mr. Adonizio’s ac- response question, to the that the lan- tions included publicly berating and here, guage “physically menacing,” it screaming Gushanas, at Ms. your position that that includes the jurist.” battery you to which have testified to Lokuta, Again, Judge you would on both your assistant? agree says with me that that sentence THE WITNESS: Yes. nothing physically about Mr. Adonizio acting out on either or Maureen
Gushanas? Lokuta, is, My question, Judge A. Correct. have testified in proceedings these Q. All right. go Let’s to the next sen- pride your that take scholar- behavior,
tence. “His ship. your which was You testified about intentionally education, both background, your confrontive and physically Sheffield, menacing, England, teaching amounted to work unbefitting to a public behavior em- constitutional law.
27. See n. 30. is, my question Judge know how not included in the letter to Cona- they han: for if taken before the vocabulary
to use and words to accu- letter, letter and not included in the rately something, describe not? do testimony Respondent would make the A. Yes. But this letter was drafted im- point and Gushanas on the even more diffi- mediately in the time frame of hav- improbable enough cult to credit. It is ing been confronted in this violent Lokuta, trying convince way. was still nervous and shak- president judge tipstaff that her had been up. Perhaps my en words were not battered, reporting would write letter coming way to me in they event, it. and make no mention of But (N.T. 2933-39). should have. it is that if improbable even more For this additional reason —absence inju- Lokuta had of the photographic proof Respondent’s any from letter of mention of ries, not have she would sent battery assault and find that no as- —we event, proof In Judge Conahan. battery during sault occurred the far- pictures if the taken until even weren’t cetta on the third floor of the courthouse office,28 after the out letter went and, therefore, on June the testi- Gushanas, according mony Respon- of Maureen Gushanas and immediately existed after it went out *88 did, dent that it is false. they Judge but were never sent to Cona- trial, 4. At Respondent provided (N.T. 2944). the han. According Respon- to photographs of herself and of Maureen they certainly Respon- dent existed when Gushanas allegedly showing bruises on Judge dent received Conahan’s letter of (Exhibit R-351). left 21, their arms. Their June 2004 in which he tells her that he her, testimony investigation was that the bruises on Mau- doesn’t believe that had by nothing reen Gushanas’s arm were caused the found that P.J. Adonizio had done that Maureen had. battery performed by wrong assault and on her Gushanas Adonizio, Judge to that if P.J. and that on is difficult for us believe the bruise Re- Lokuta, having just been told she was spondent’s arm was caused when she liar, of holding photographic evidence banged her arm on the or water elevator to physical injuries Maureen Gushanas cooler when she was from Mr. escaping herself, that not have immedi- she would Adonizio. the pho- Gushanas testified that Judge to ately brought evidence Co- tographs immediately” were taken “almost nahan. (N.T.2045); after the Adonizio incident but
Respondent testified not taken were photographs The claim that the until after she letter to “drafted” the by taken and her Respоndent as described Judge reporting Conahan the incident by is further the fact the tipstaff weakened (Board 5) (N.T. 2944). Exhibit This is Respondent never their exis- mentioned Respondent’s explanation why pho- of the during her August tence until tographs admittedly taken for the sole deposition produced and were not to the — purpose documenting injuries of to Board until sometime after that. 3359-60).29 2947-48, Respondent Maureen Gushanas and —were By post? By testimony when the was it delivered? 28. The doesn’t tell us ered. How By that the hand? fax? It is not at all clear says letter went out of the office. photographs in hand before the let- were not photos were taken after she "drafted” the ter out the door. went course, letter. In normal after a letter is drafted, reviewed, addressed, typed, it Respondent’s produce pho failure to these it be deliv- a decision made as to how should document, tographs and offered to —taken really Gushanas’ bruises were question The whose idea it was Maureen photographs up during coming light. take the And I looked down at came Respondent’s questions responses trial. point and discovered that had one on point put by to her Court were my left arm as well. self-contradictory.
evasive and just putting— So it a matter JUDGE SPRAGUE: How was the deci- taking already camera. had the We circumstances, made—the sion don’t there, pic- camera because we had taken any testimony think been there’s —how interns. And the tures of those two it come about to take photographs? until pictures developed weren’t even THE I think al- WITNESS: that was anyway. much later afterthought. most an it done after the time that So was me, The initial by decision made me sort indicated to Conahan this, try that witnessed towas it, situation, that the as witnessed was judge. to reach out to the president totally than the one he different did. indeed, knowing if, Mr. Adonizio cancer, type problem had some JUDGE SPRAGUE: Whose idea was gone myself, I having through photographs? know to take the people are emotional. THE WITNESS: I think Maureen Gu- So the initial contact me to shanas was the first one have her was to see if mediate Conahan we could on, taken. And then later photograph this, to see if we could There coexist. did. charge no intention to file an assault JUDGE SPRAGUE: That’s not by me. The idea was to reach out.30 *89 question. Whose idea was it take Judge JUDGE SPRAGUE: Lokuta— photographs? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE I think it Mau- WITNESS: was pretty JUDGE SPRAGUE: —I’m aware reen Gushanas’. And believe the then- testimony by My question of that now. secretary took that. quite simple. is did the decision to photo- How take asking I’m not JUDGE SPRAGUE:
graphs occur? se- give me that photographs. who took the if you will. quence, is, My question very simply, whose THE Sure. After the time WITNESS: it the photographs? idea was to take Judge of the conversation with Conahan and It idea to after the time that this letter THE WITNESS: was was written, I photographs. think it was determined that take the Judge regards Judge prove, injuries at of Mr. her letter sustained the hands If Lokuta 10, Conahan, on June 2004—for more than Judge Adonizio in which she demands that years only they two then because were disciplinary “appropriate take ac- Conahan —and accidentally deposition— mentioned in her against protection for the [Adonizio] tions seriously leads us to doubt that staff, myself, my employees other courthouse taken on June 2004 almost immediate visitors,” "mediate,” as an offer to as a incident, ly Respondent as after as has "coexist," "reaching] plea out to the Respondent's serted. Also inconsistent with lucky president judge,” Mr. Adonizio taking pictures is Re admitted reason L WdoUl s y. dllgl testimony pondent pictures s wer that developed any until later en't even much 3362). (N.T. way." 1086 tes- Deputy
JUDGE SPRAGUE: That’s all I’ve So if Sheriff Klinefelter you. you. Judge it asked Thank 3360- tified that was Lokuta who Lokuta). screaming, lying? is she was Yes, be, because it was she would So, it her idea to said was screaming. P. only J. who was take photographs. But she also said Onderko, if Q. And what Michael if “nothing that it.” she had do with We Judge testifying he’s was counsel, refer to N.T. where Board screaming, Lokuta was and he who examining Respondent, reading was from Mr. place didn’t see Adonizio Respondent’s deposition: anyone, lying, hands on is he too? question: is the there Here “Was was Yes, he is. an investigation?” Your “I don’t know that there answer: an I’m investigation. Now, told that if Mr. Refowieh testified be- investigation,
there an but was panel fore this and told them that it questioned. never was witness this. Judge Lokuta who was scream- only at was not directed Maureen no ing physical he saw Gushanas, but also me.” contact between Mr. Adonizio and anyone else, Judge Lokuta or is he pictures
“I that there are know show- lying, too? ing bruising Maureen Gushanas that Yes, secretary, he is. by was taken and I had Yes.
nothing to do with terms Hannon, And Theresa what is her added). directing (Emphasis it.” position in the courthouse? Judge Augello’s secretary. A. She is testimony, Respondent’s With this credi- bility on the suffers further —and Q. So if Theresa Hannon testified be- subject of the photographs. panel told them that it fore this Lokuta who was scream- said, 5. As we have we find that There- no ing physical and that contact was Hannon, Refowieh, sa Michael Harold On- made Mr. Adonizio with either derko Michelle Klinefelter31 Lokuta, lying, is she and have credible witnesses no trouble *90 too? finding testimony their to truthful. Yes, A. she is. conspicuous thing most The about their Conahan, you do Q. Judge know who testimony is that it contradicts the testi- Judge is? Conahan mony of Gusha- Maureen Yes, A. I do. every particular. nas in This almost was if Q. testifying and to And he were before this brought Maureen Gushanas's did, Respondent’s during panel, which he and said that he attention the trial screaming, it. a female not a they explain were invited Gu- heard male, explained lying, it is he too? shanas as follows: shouting"; Judge that Cona- is a feature of Klinefelter's testimo- heard "a There female ny, present testimony to see what in the the other han had sent her outside was witnesses, testimony going on "because there outside Board which makes her female Thus, shouting.” question shouting before she of who outside the courtroom was, probative. it knew it was a 4 even more She knew who she courtroom female. Adonizio as the shout- when in courtroom 4— Thus does she exclude testified that she was into er. she came out the rotunda —she before A. Yes. yelling, heard female voices he providing testimony also false Q. So all of people lying those are panel? this panel? A. IYes. didn’t even see Harold Refo-
A. Yes. wich there. Q. Why are lying? all Counselor, A. I don’t know. You’d (N.T. 2113-16). have ask them. Q. providing Was Mr. Refowich false testimony panel to this when he said Respondent explained it as follows: you that angry upset? BY MR. PUSKAS: A. Yes. I didn’t see Mr. Refowich And, Q. Lokuta, you listened to there. And I think I said that testimony Maureen Gushanas’ dur- my deposition. ing these proceedings, correct? Q. he providing testimony Was false A. Yes. when he said that Mr. Adonizio Q. Do you agree her testimony? made no physical contact with Well,
A. I haven’t committed or Maureen Gushanas? memory, Counselor. So is it A. Yes. IAnd think each of these peo- like respond me to ple that everything testified said to? differently. One wasn’t consistent Do agree testimony with her with the other. And if look at that Board witnesses to the incident the testimony, you’llsee that. came panel before this provided Q. Judge Lokuta, provid- was he also false testimony about this incident? ing testimony false panel to this Yes, A. I do. when he described actions as Hannon, So when Theresa intimidation? Augello’s secretary, executive testi- definitely. Mоst fied that Maureen Gushanas was loud, very providing was she false
testimony panel? to this Now, Deputy heard Sher- iff Michelle testify Klinefelter I believe she was. heard, quote, she shouting females Q. And when Theresa Hannon testified outside Courtroom No. was she in, engaged quote, unquote, providing testimony false to this ungodly screaming, she also panel? providing false testimony to this panel? might She that. heard That’s what she heard. She wasn’t there Yes, believe was. *91 when this place. event even took Q. And when she testified that Mr. She in the courtroom. Adonizio laid a hand never 2954-60). Gushanas, or Maureen pro- was she viding testimony? false The inquired explana- Court about this Yes, tion: I believe she was. Well, heard Maureen Gu- JUDGE I must SPRAGUE: ask testify regarding shanas question, Judge Harold Re- this Perjury, Lokuta: fowich, in jury lying oath, know, who worked under as allwe is a time, boardroom at very, very that he serious matter. question
And I think the that Mr. applies Respondent’s dence. This to con- asking, is it duct and Gushanas’s conduct. Puskas is view of the The facts so clearly establish a violation of Canon specified witnesses he’s so far to 3A.(3) say need not. you, recognizing we will more—we the seriousness crime perjury, giving testimony, false 2. find that We the evidence is reasons, nonetheless for I’ll some leave convincing also clear and that this conduct that, it at in have come here and have Respondent was so extreme that it committed such crimes? brought judicial office itself into disre they THE WITNESS: believe have Smith, pute. See In re In re Cicchetti In come in in here and not testified a truth- Trkula, cases, supra. re and other cited (N.T. 2980-81). ful fashion.... refer not only Respondent’s We conduct circumstances, Given the we allow on the third floor of the courthouse rotun Respondent there was little else that and Respondent’s da but refer also filing we say; suggestion Gushanas could but their report president judge of a false individually that these up witnesses made urging punish him to Mr. Adonizio perjury32 their minds to commit is certain- allegations based on the false she made of ly absolutely adventurous but there is no Mr. Adonizio’s conduct. evidence in record which would lead special have concern about the We false
us to it. believe report. Respondent’s report We find
These are the reasons made Find- we singularly Conahan to be dishonor- ings of Fact Nos. 40-64. We find that able, does, exhibiting, as an extraordi- those facts establish a violation of: nary level of malice. 3A.(3) 1. Canon of the of Judicial Code say think judges We it is fair to are 1; in charged Conduct as Count generally in highly regarded their commu- 18(d)(1) V, §
2. Pennsyl- Article nities; courthouses, they in their are the vania Constitution the conduct is “upper they say likely class.” Whatever judicial brings such that office regarded prima to be as true —at facie disrepute charged into Count least their courthouses. Whoever con- likely tradicts them is the burden have findings in We will discuss these proof particularly in their courthouses. order as listed above. — Judge Lokuta no doubt knew—or be- 3A.(3) portions 1. The of Canon in her court- lieved—that this was the case pertinent Respondent’s during conduct expected house. She also knew—or —that the Adonizio incident are: report if in the what she said was believed Judges patient, dignified, should be true, Mr. P.J. Adonizio be to ... courteous others with whom if subject employment discipline to serious should capacity, deal their official that, Knowing not termination. she filed of their staff. require similar conduct report anyhow. the false We find this to position, be an of her an abuse of The conduct of and Gusha- abuse her standing, nas found to occurred and an abuse of office. which we have oth- Findings lucky of Fact Nos. 40-64 Mr. Adonizio is there were four as set out convincing happened ers to be there. are based on clear and evi- who *92 2462-63, 2466-68, purpose? Respondent gives Court. See N.T. 32. For what her theory, theory will and the evidence later in the trial when she we discuss that on that it, lying witnesses of to of then. accuses all the Board's
1089 In re again reassigned We refer our be taken from her and opinion to had to (N.T. Smith where Toole; we said that: to other 253-54 N.T. judges. Conahan). 463-65, 468-71 “Disrepute” necessarily incorporates some standard to regard with the rea- County, 68. In Luzerne at least in the expectations sonable of of public the a presi- years was the Conahan judicial officer’s conduct. assign dent judge, practice the a Smith, supra, Certainly 1239. the ex certain of the judges number handle pectations public the of would include the judges criminal list and the other to civil expectation judicial that a officer would not court. court miscellaneous Whenever deliberately charges make false of serious judges assigned to criminal court were against only misconduct man a whose of all dispose of the cases on their unable place fense was to more a urgency on visit lists, the court administrator would ask the oncologist his wife’s than on an immedi other judges help with criminal impromptu ate and meeting Respon with judges helped. cases. All of other dent. (N.T. 3309-31, Respondent did not. 3694- Conahan; 23). 21, 22 Exhibits
We find that Respondent’s conduct dur- ing the encounter Mr. with Adonizio and 69. We find by that the events related making report her a false presi- with testimony in this rec- witnesses dent judge demanding disciplinary action reproduced in ord the Discussion which against Mr. for something Adonizio he did follow occurred as described the testi- do, is such brings judicial mony at frequency the times with the disrepute. office into as related the witnesses. Discussion G. COOPERATION WITH PRESI-
DENT JUDGES AND FAILURE TO samples We here of the set down DO WORK testimony us to make Findings which leads of Fact Nos. 65-68. Findings of Fact Judge Patrick J. Toole testified:
65. Michael Conahan has been a in Luzerne of County Court Common you please tell the Could Court —let January Pleas since 1994. He served up me back here for moment.
five year president term as judge from relationship What kind of did (N.T. 455, 2002 through 2006. 461-62 Co- presi- have Lokuta as with nahan). judge? dent Respondent ignored
66. various di- i) president judges rectives of the to: re- think ask when. If ii) port staff; days and sick vacation 1992, it ask me what it provide copies reports of the attendance relationship. By was one the time employees of her as well as of claimed came, different. iii) time; accumulated sick or vacation BY MR. PUSKAS: approval appointments per- obtain Toole). Well, beginning. sonnel. 246-51 let’s start from the 1992, In it like? what was consistently handled disposed fewer cases and she was elected—she was cases '92, slowly more in '91 to take office in handle than her elected fellow judges.... court. three judges along Because this cases other *93 I 242- relationship, thought, began And the was to deteriorate. 46). good. Now,
Q. changed? indicated it Judge Toole also testified: Well, What did Lokuta do in re- changed years. A. it over the sponse issued directives? did it change? When A. a of There were number directives Oh, I change think started to at years. that I issued over the The I the end of 1992. would check and are, vividly that I rather ones recall statistically determine what was I every directed that member of the happening, being what cases were immediately me bench was to advise I feeling moved. And had the they if appear able that— day. assignment their for a handle I any judge directed that who also my opinion upon my was based seeking was to utilize vacation of all our at that review records the request sick time was to make checking time in with courtrooms indi- early possible to me as as producing that she was not early that as meant possible cated same amount work some they request that should vacation point other At I judges. one asked month day before first my her to come to chamber. month in preceding the which BY MR. PUSKAS: a And the reason wanted vacation. was, allot- for that that was the time Q. What her court at that roster applying ted for the service time? Did mention criminal judge. senior court? I that judge also directed each assigned
A. She was to criminal court time, track of sick keep vacation that time. I can’t remember the accumulated any time and claimed date, I but I can tell remember or vacation time. And I sick would day. my She came to cham- ask routinely judges submit by accompanied bers. She was her I reports. also directed that each clerk, Beth Boris. And on that law copy me with a provide that, I day, very indicated to her reports. of their 703 frankly, think I didn’t she was back, in the time I Going entire shouldering her of the work. share received, I never nev- president judge, er, requests despite numerous I my indicated to her that that was memos, dates, a list of the the total obviously disagreed opinion. She days of and the claimed accumulation date, and she told me on that sick time claimed vacation and/or remember, that, was not any employees judge. for the That make her clone. She would me just never came. send you? Q. She said that to say first have this report A. Yes. many days. And then would send a any there further discussion? Was well, I have say, memo to asked, only give one please, recall further discussion. don’t on, days, me the number of but point And I think from dates as well as relationships give specific there were me whatever *94 unclaimed, tion, would, in- day the claimed or it she would find it unused structive, proposed sick That because that time vacation time. was it supplied. require amendment and now never president judge that the require does reports, requested 70S I those. and the court administrator receive on, responses
And that fell I get didn’t copies reports. long finally, for a period of time. And day I indicating response always one sent a memo that Same was to the 703s, I had not to the please received the same
respond. Aid the memo came back I indicated then that I also wanted something and said to the effect that every keep office to track of the at- only it a ago short time I learned every employee tendance records you that were interested the 703s. I they but the law clerk. And that all file them the time on time. And if keep they should track of the time you supply authority will me with the arrive, leave, they the time and that you claim entitles to those re- should be available in the I re- event review, ports, will I don’t remember that, it. quested requested then word, if that but she would of, January think in I think it’s '96. my authority
review and let me know. That was never received. Q. Why want 703 re- those policy per- Did also have a
ports? appointments? sonnel record, JUDGE For indicating SPRAGUE: handed down a directive can identify right we a 703 is. that and I think this be- what Judge fore Ciavarella came on the A. A 703 the report required is that is bench, been, would have it which to be by, submitted then it '95, might been that one of the have judge to the Then AOPC. was no long in a list I pro- directives that requirement that president vided for that all his edification was judge given it. I wanted them appointments to be personnel were gives you because it some indication signed by anyone me and that if the nature of the work the anyone, they to appoint wanted performing. gives you is It some were to tell me. And if it were a they indication as to whether or not I’d hand personal appointment, helps you are current. then de- order, down the because we had assignments cide nature of the problems hirings some about given. gives And also salaries. they a chance to determine if do, And did Lokuta Lo- filing report. are correct poli- kuta do when issued that memo, telling I then sent her a cy? that, I think that was the sign A. She continued to her own or- you question memo I said where ev- ders. erything I direct. And that au- thority statutory provision
provides president judge You testified earlier about the inci- came to power responsibility and the to run an dent where Lokuta Boris. You judicial system. efficient also office with Beth if there to talk to her about her indicated her that looked anything amendment to Did occur with proposed the 703 sec- caseload. fall, think, September to from that from the regard to her caseload longer. January. And then lasted meeting? *95 BY MR. PUSKAS: try I can tell that I continued have been? Q. year would that What on the dispositions to monitor the 1996. I think A. That have been would it criminal list. So know how that I think I can tell six. then, judges we had two worked after the four months approximately court.... who would sit criminal her, there assigned to cases were readily apparent And it became I were still 17—there that think, me one was— we started. There when and she had set-
were 17 cases left tled three in four months. disposing many ... more cases. another court point At that we had equal. try keep You the work meeting and the Court decid- en banc Again, person long- when one takes there volun- judges ed that all of the another, try er to a case than even- that’s how teered to take the list and more tually doing someone is work of. And there were disposed was they than should. I then decided when, because she other occasions to take assignment period the next absent, that her had to be list was and I think her out of criminal court (N.T. 253- by handled someone else. call the I made her then what we 54). judge. might Or I miscellaneous might I
have sent her to civil. Conahan, president judge Judge Michael (N.T. 247- sent her to civil then. County through of Luzerne from 53). 2006, testified:
Q. you describe for Court Can Q. judge, As ever president Lokuta as Judge interaction with judge’s
take cases from a caseload Judge? President reassign them? Judge? A. As President A. Yes. Yes, Judge. as President you did that Q. Was there occasion I being Judge, President A. Prior to Judge Lokuta’s cases? with day I very think it was formal. The of occasions A. There were a number Judge, and elected President that had to be done. Judge from took those duties over tell the Please Court— preceding Augello who was the everything Judge, I think
President assigned until I her to okay went point problems A. At one we had with Place, fa- was another Perm which a, I’ll call equity court. There was the main cility located outside the court. backlog. it a met with Courthouse. change assignment I made a juvenile that because the And I did assigned at that Judge Lokuta was floor of the third were on all sum- court cases equity, to handle all point Courthouse, didn’t have and we appeals, the miscellaneous mary Judge Cia- moved Judge enough space. to assist that she was also down to her Chambers Muroski, court varella orphan who was the a brand was, to—this was moved her down assignment That judge. facility new built Judges help The Senior two County. floor, On the third there PFA out relation courtroom, pro- well our as adult Courts when were available juvenile summary appeals. bation and offices. I moved and the her down there. they normally Now did handle that on, think from that point court, Judges? these Senior move, was dissatisfied with No, not until got Lokuta very unhappy being there. assignment. facilities, She didn’t like the didn’t like *96 Q. Judge, Now as President do other being taken of out the main Court- departments court report house. And it started to deterio- about issues that have? on, rate from that point our relation- Well, A. Yeah. you have a chain of ship. Sharkey, command. You Bill hаve Q. did that affect your How work as who is Administrator. Court President Judge Judge vis-á-vis Lo- Everybody reports to him. I would kuta? meet Bill a daily with on basis for at anything seemed like I asked her least half every- a hour to hour an do, nothing got ever done. day on things various that are
on negotiations, from union court BY MR. PUSKAS: assignments, assign- to caseload ments, Q. give moving, to statistics or cases Can an example—
budgetary items. Q. Were diffi- any made aware assignments A. The were Miscella- Judge culties Lokuta anoth- neous and Motions Court. The civil department? er court list, I think in the beginning, there was approximately a back- 50 case log Judge had while she get daily updates from Bill
was down there. The cases weren’t Administrator, Sharkey, Court moving. as performance to the Lo- Judge assigned then her from list to civil kuta, doing. what she was or wasn’t call what we motions miscellaneous that, that Based on is how I made took court. the 50 cases and as- my assignments. signed them to the Judges. other We Were there difficulties with apiece got each took five or ten and Court Administration? rid of those in about or six five MR. SINATRA: ob- have the same months, that backlog. civil jection. point on, From that I understand it. JUDGE SPRAGUE: Court, charge of Motions Miscellane- overruling I’m the basis of His Court, ous PFA’s and Summaries and being Honor the President and availability had the to have two Senior at that his duties time to oversee Judges help her out in those courts. administration of the in Lu- Courts particular Was her assignment County. zerne Go ahead. then? Which Courts— BY MR. PUSKAS: help- mentioned Senior
ing You respect question. out to what? can answer the convincing The clear and evidence violations Court Administration schedules assigns Ann arguments,
oral cases. of: Burns is our civil list. Lois Woods 3A.(5) of Judicial 1. Canon the Code of PO’s charge is in of the and Motions charged 3; as in Count Conduct things of that nature. Court 18(d)(1) V, Pennsyl- § 2. Article girl There is a named Jean —there’s for the conduct vania Constitution girls in that four or five office. proper ad- prejudices such that justice charged ministration A. As a result of learned from 6; and Count Administrator, I had as- Court 3B.(1) of Judicial the Code of Canon signed Judge Lokuta to Motions Conduct. Miscellaneous Court then permeated with credible The record is to her to do all her delegated own testimony of witnesses who variety from scheduling assignments. Court Ad- recalcitrance Respondent’s corroborate out of it. totally ministration was regarding cooperation. caseload *97 She could do she wanted whatever accept posi- seek and then the Those who court, wanted, in that whenever she judge the do tion of within Commonwealth wanted, time frame whatever she subject legally obligations so to mandated she to work. wanted whenever As dis- diligence of and consideration. work, she didn’t want to Whenever Respon- Opinion, elsewhere cussed everything— total control of she had 9 to 5 not to a generally dent did adhere scheduling everything the and she schedule, from frequently and was absent wanted to do. judicial duties the her courthouse when get Court Administra- wanted still, in the Worse as described beckoned. totally away Judge tor from Lokuta testimony Judges of Toole and President and her staff. Conahan, resisted Respondent vigorously other Judge Lokuta —when Was the facilitating accepting assignments Judges problems had difficulties or of court. President business the When schedule, Judge their court with requested report Toole that she Judge help Lokuta out? days, and sick and that staff vacation Judges during my No. I had two actions, she personnel approval obtain every ill. And other term President ignored requests. his When participated helping out Judge copies Respon- of requested Toole Judge than with their caseload other (a track used to reports dent’s 703 form Judge Lokuta. for, not been ripe are but have cases which help Q. Was she asked out? be, decided), timely Respon- may not 462-68). A. She was. justi- reasonable dent refused without judge’s questioned president find conduct fication Respondent’s de- We authority to them.33 request testimony scribed set out above time, why can of no reason of the 703s. We think Supreme At the Court Order re- re- filing reports comply did not such quiring Respondent would not with president copies be filed with the only order that quest that this and can conclude However, president judge’s judges. it is Respondent's re- demonstration of another on in Ms job keep track what is animosity it that her to whatever was flexive thus, and, perfectly we it was court believe might president judge propose. Judge copies request Toole to reasonable for Judge may, just President Toole testified about STREIB: If I one JUDGE follow-up Judge Sprague’s question, the Fosko case—a real estate tax assess- to make sure I understand. ment in front appeal Respon- which was dent. After had made her When the court administrator would opinion, Judge go judges decision and around and ask the civil written criminal, help obviously, any- out in requested Toole that she hold her decision body at Penn Place would Judge because Toole her to wanted meet asked? him Judge Musto were also who deciding THE WITNESS: That’s correct. appeal assessment cases at the incorrect, Well, no. That’s because time. pro- Toole testified that he we do that now with Ciavarella. posed explore possibili- a conference to ty of obtaining a consensus on the sub-
ject34 guidelines so that uniform could be trying ... I’m JUDGE STREIB: handling established for the of real estate understand that been have tax appeals county. assessment in the Re- administrator, common for the court if spondent to engage declined in discussion someone—whatever was located subject at Penn Place— judges with the two opinion. filed her THE Right. WITNESS: JUDGE STREIB: —Would
Although the not desig Board has been asked to assist crimi- during this nated pre which canon or constitutional nal trial term? violated, cept this conduct it made much of *98 THE They WITNESS: would have. that,
it. although might We hold it have They STREIB: JUDGE would have? “nice” been to meet as Respondent Right. THE I’m at Penn WITNESS: requested, although might have that. Place now and do pleased president the judge, her failure to Okay. STREIB: But JUDGE do so not any is a violation of canon of the that the at the time that practice of Judicial any precept Code Conduct or of president judge as were well? of the Constitution. THE Yeah. WITNESS: 68, in Finding As described of Fact No. they JUDGE STREIB: would it practice they was the the Luzerne been if in mis- within asked court? Pleas, cellaneous County during of Court Common Conahan, Judge
the tenure of President THE WITNESS: Yes. that judges in the non-criminal who were So, STREIB: JUDGE wouldn’t court, civil, juve- of the such as divisions have mattered court or what lo- what nile, miscellaneous, would make them- cation? help
selves available to criminal with cases THE The court adminis- WITNESS: get- court’s criminal docket was judges— trator should know what ting up. following dialog backed The be- judge doing. what that is We hand Conahan, Judge Judge Streib and tween week, know, every aout schedule during Judge which occurred sheriffs, Conahan’s stenographers, so the ev- cross-examination, is informative of erybody everybody’s knows process. is. schedule Respondent’s. Judges preparing opinions file at variance with Toole and Musto were
1096 Judge initial scheduled al calendar of the
So know what is court because make court for the matter. out of court we before the fol- assignments Friday Judge responded by immediately Lokuta lowing week. shipping Judge Augello, the file back you. Thank Okay. JUDGE STREIB: instructions, directly contrary to his awith (N.T. 3699-3702). him that he quarrelsome telling memo against by intentionally discriminating 21, 22 Board and 23 include Exhibits some rule about summer misapplying by judge of all criminal matters breakdown scheduling. Her memo concludes: disposed during years of calendar 2004 Conahan). 3309-31 through 2006. Therefore, ... accept I cannot that this that, during peri- The Exhibits reveal only to me and applied rule should be od, court judges all of the assisted any Judge. other not to disposition of criminal matters with copy any Finally, request would except example, For Board Respondent. election written documentation following Exhibit includes the break- Judge pur- as interim President for the disposed by of criminal cases all of down (Board pose any pending litigation. judges of the court for 2004: P.J. 17). Exhibit 604.5; 416.4; J.M. Toole J. Au- Conahan Acting Judge A days few later President 238; 294; Mundy J. gello J. Ciavarella Augello sent a memo President 223; 209; 436; J. J. J. Burke Olszewski Toole, Lokuta, report- which copy 179.5; 564.5; Cappelini Sr. J. Toole ed: 22 and 23 for cal- Respondent 0. Exhibits years respectively, endar 2004 and 13,1996, Judge Lokuta 1. On June pattern, are similar in plus protection from scheduled to hear having participate disposi- failed to notice, than 24 hours abuse eases. On less years tion of criminal cases in those Adminis- Judge Lokuta advised Court well. present. trator she asked court administration
When 27, 1996, Judge Lokuta was 2. On June *99 Judge the direction of President Conahan again plus protection scheduled to hear 25 judges to take some of the cases of two Judge Lokuta advised from abuse cases. ill, judges all of the of the court who were in the after- Administrator late Court Respondent. for When obliged, except 26, 1996, noon of June that she would Augello, by memo and act- Judge Joseph present not be to conduct scheduled again behalf, Judge Toole’s re- ing on President court. (which she Respondent turned a case to instances, the cases held at In both returned to the court ad- previously had by judges other be- the scheduled time ministrator), immediately answered emergency nature of these cause of the which, among things, other
with a memo protect to our fami- cases and the need of a contained the threat lawsuit. from domestic violence. lies Respondent memo to Judge Augello’s re- necessary this last minute Due to 17) (Board Exhibit stated: cases, to hear these scheduling judges of of our disruption some to for there was file is returned The above criminal trials as well planned civil and Miscellaneous Court cases disposition. court June, Orphans/Miscellaneous of as other during the months scheduled 18). (Board Exhibit proceedings. remain on the individu- July August and 1097 Judge quick response justice charged Lokuta’s ministration of as 6; memo no offered denial or Count explanation of Augello’s
her conduct described in Judge 3B.(1) 2. of Judicial Canon Code reported memo which another instance of Conduct; and disregard judges for her fellow and 3A.(5) of 3. of Judicial Canon Code orderly justice administration of in that charged in Count Conduct as it courthouse. Nor did offer apology an As 1. and 2. above: conduct disruption throughout
for the caused prejudices proper which administration day. court that reply Judge Her Augel- justice of and conduct obstructs the which was: lo performance respon of the administrative your
I note with interest attached Memo of court judges sibilities other and officials. of regarding PFA cases scheduled 7/1/96 We hold that by evidence described and 6/13/96 6/27/96. the Board has its of above carried burden establishing evi these violations. The nugatory consider Memo for four convincing dence is so clear and that no reasons: elaboration is called for. 1. You are not the Judge. President 3A.(5) As to 3. Canon of the Code 2. You did not hear the PFA cases of dispose Judicial Conduct: Failure to particular days. those promptly the business of the court. 3. You have authority question no in an We said earlier case on this my ability to take leave. subject: 4. You have no authority monitor question open prompt my attendance. expeditious disposition of the cases (Board 18).35 Exhibit among which come before him or her is judge. the duties of a This has Court The evidence is clear convincing stated is “a fundamental obli that, beginning during term gation jurist in this [of] Common (1991-1996) Toole continuing through wealth to re prompt justice.” render In the term (2002-2006), Conahan (Pa.Ct.Jud. Fischer, 535, A.2d 537 unduly insubordinate, un- Disc.1995). cooperative, and disruptive authority president direction of the judges See, also, In Shaffer, re 885 A.2d length set out at above. findWe that the (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005). Board has established clear and con- is ample There evidence in this record to
vincing evidence that this conduct *100 is a 3A.(5). Judge violation of establish Canon violation of: gave example Toole one 17 cases where 18(d)(1) V, §
1.Article of the Pennsyl- Respondent had to be taken from because vania Constitution for the conduct assigned is inaction and to the other (N.T. 254). that prejudices such proper judges. the ad- Judge Conahan testi- when, be, Judge Augello president judge may 35. during investigation, the with its Respondent whom said she had "a wonderful requested Respondent give the Board to it the (N.T. 3051-52). years” five "he That was a anyone she wanted the names Board to kind and honorable individual that under- interview, names; gave she 100 Board but colleague stood that I was a and I should be Augello’s Judge one name was not of them. afforded the emoluments this office and he (N.T. 3052-53). (N.T. gave 3040-41). them to me.” However 1098 he to reassign
fled had civil cases of I would have taken the Court and to Respondent’s assigned remaining Judges, “the it because cases weren’t (N.T. 465). everything. got The work would have moving.” But the seriousness (N.T. 470-71). done. of the situation Judge is made manifest in responses ques- the following Conahan’s We find that Board has established tions of the Court: 3A.(5) by violation of Canon clear and con- vincing ... evidence.
JUDGE SPRAGUE: think the question In your bottom line is: ca- OF MISUSE COURT EMPLOYEES H. as pacity Judge, President a in problem Lokuta the administra- Findings of Fact tion County? Courts Luzerne Sammon a legal 70. Rebecca Ann Judge, would have been better for Respondent’s intern in office in the sum- me up if she never showed for work. 2003, 2002 and and Judith M. mers of
Flaherty Respondent’s as law clerk served April through from March 2001. At ques- JUDGE And the SPRAGUE: the time of her Sammon was a law service tion and that I hear answers lead me Flaherty a student. recent law school a question. repeat it. will Was graduate position Respon- with problem your Lokuta ca- (N.T. lawyer. dent was her first as a job pacity as the President Judge Sammon; Flaherty). N.T. 1408-12 1236-37 in the administration of the Courts County? Luzerne During summers of 2002 and sending Sammon’s duties included A. She was. Respondent’s out letters of condolence to explain JUDGE SPRAGUE: And personal acquaintances, per- as as well why you say she was. legal research in connection forming Well, addition the matters that had Respondent whether a cause of action here, everything outlined that— against anybody remedy what she con- relationship had confronta- as function sidered interference with her Any tional. that I assignments made (N.T. judge. 1241—44 pleas common finished, never seemed to be whether Sammon). equity, civil cases. Con- compromis- 72. On numerous occasions stantly monitoring Court move ing hours hundreds of divert- things get on. Letters from person- for Flaherty ed services of lawyers, either recused herself Flaherty). al benefit. 1415-16 lawyers from who couldn’t matters her, appear in front of it was constant Respon- 73. These services diverted at daily meetings with the Court Admin- companionship dent’s direction included: juggle things istrators to around to member; family gro- an ill elderly get the work load done. work, cery yard home mainte- shopping, clеaning, organizing, wrapping, nance and addition,
In I had Senior two Law antiques and packaging collectibles. some of the Judges assigned to handle *101 (N.T. Flaherty). 1436-41 Courts. by you said find that the related
JUDGE SPRAGUE: When We events testimony rec- it been better the witnesses in this before that would have if in the Discussion you up, reproduced for she didn’t even show ord which as described in the testi- you by mean that? follow occurred what did on Q. you working How often were mony frequency at the times and with the project? related that witnesses. Discussion A. I told that it to take —it was was important and that I the utmost was samples We set here down was, know, to that —I did a you do testimony Findings which leads us to make it. I in corre- lot of work on was of Fact Nos. 70-73. spondence with one of the—I don’t Regarding the summer of 2008 when she She—She worked for the know. Respondent, worked for Rebecca Sammon correspondence I AOPC. was testified as follows: judge her. The asked me to with summer, Q. during And that second I contact her. And was to look into did you what do as her intern? docu- regarding different matters know, would, A. I Legal you research. menting things different were on I work some cases. would re- happening back and forth with the know, you search research some— AOPC, issues, researching different laws, I write memos. would also sheriff, like for one issues every do—Just about there morning with, know, you different issues would be the desk that I sat at things that were on. newspapers. some And in sec- 1241-44). tion where the obituaries were she Flaherty Judith testified: obituaries, would circle and I would Q. position you And what was type sympathy had notes. She me hired for? template previous create a sum- tipstaff/law I was hired for clerk mer to use for it so that I position. wasn’t there other could do people
it as well. And that the most explained you it consistent I thing would do. I your duties would entail? every day.
would do that about be, Well, you basically how would Q. And who for? were these obituaries know, know, assisting, you people guess Just that she knew Judge and the staff. Loku- people know, that she knew someone explain, ta—I did or, you attorney, job was related to them young first
know, just grew school, someone that she so I didn’t have out law up something with or a relative or any experience. But it sounded like know, like that. good position. You herself, pride Lokuta said she did things And what other kind of did know, in being a mentor she have do? attorneys, bringing young liked had know me—The first know, mentoring them. So year sorry, I was there —I’m I don’t thought good oppor- it would be a had go mean to back—but she me me, know, tunity as an at- complaint research into a with the torney. regarding AOPC some treatment And after went to work for she felt that it was—felt how Lokuta, you get mentor- maybe being
like she was mistreat- ship? ed.
A. No.
recall, a month. probably about long after I started. wasn’t Q. you spend How much time cham- working Judge Lokuta’s did it come about? How bers court? and/or to be can A. ... So what started was day, prob- A. of the During the course pick up and Wegman’s run to you of the ably percent like a half to 60 know, bread, you some maybe some day my duration there. And over items, tomatoes, other and some end, then like the last towards at the end up. take it That started month, really at the court- wasn’t day. And then that went of the at basically up house at all. into, you help yard like with the can Dupont. her home in work, know, up some you cleaning week, Q. Your schedule for a what brush, needed some stuff that she been, Monday would that have there, out, had taken rocks that she Friday? through stuff like that. Friday. Monday through it was after And at first started —it 1411-16). is it happened But then what hours. Flaherty gradually Ms. testified that county time happen during started spent away bulk of her work time was know, where, you go my can you Respondent’s the courthouse at the from and, know, you sit with Julie house home. know, for, a few hours if Barbara you Lokuta’s Q. Why you were or I coming in a little bit later home? know, and, you with go up need for I was there to do tasks her. te- she’d call antiques these hotchke, wrap to bubble I need explain Please that to the Court. together them antiques put them and store storage containers things do would be —I neatly they get didn’t nice and so things to do like sit with Jul- asked damaged. ie, mother, help yard or yard, clearing up know, like there, work up So I’d be help pack yard, brush in the inside time, many times hours at a few like and an- pack collectibles county time and carried over between storage con- tiques, pack them in happened is time. And what work downstairs, them put tainers the course go this would over nice, things up. away straighten basically time there. started — in cer- upstairs thing Also the same straighten- a lot like the downstairs rooms, just straighten up items downstairs, tain the items that ing up were and, know, it’s nice containers, make sure away in them packaging through the stuff go know, and neat and them, up where putting for her. nice and neat.
BY MR. PUSKAS: happened is towards And then what start- begin When did this after Julie my employment the end home, Judge Loku-
ed to her hav- away, passed had ta’s home? and so she ing appraised, the house up. And what straightened needed it after Probably about a month go up me if I’d time, she asked started, happened if I could around *103 HOI Dupont. usually to And I is I up Dupont. happened went to What then doing focusing I be more of the after- basically What was is would—it would go in in that I upstairs, two rooms like noon was there and into straightening cleaning early evening. hap- them And up, them then what you know, I at up, putting straight- pened is sometimes would be like— clothes, court, know, ening any you items like if there was a trial orga- them, know, nizing you making going sure on. And then she didn’t need everything stay like, was nice and neat. me like to there. She’d be here, you up I’m I to go fine need to you doing when were that? Dupont. during A. That county was time like is, said, as, you as I happened What during the hours of 8:30 and 4:80 at know, like progressed Julie worse Basically the end. the whole month her condition and after she February up I Dupont. was passed away, happened what is it ac- And I a going know there was trial it tually being turned into more of courthouse, at down and the said, Dupont. Like I that last month judge presiding was over that. But in Dupont during during time— I inup Dupont. county time. JUDGE SPRAGUE: Can I ask a that, I Also over course question. you.go When to work each know, Julie, you sit if would with Julie day, do you sign sign out or do was, know, you at home because she you— Manor, inwas Little Flower and she No, sign sign we wouldn’t in or out. Hospital during General you. JUDGE SPRAGUE: Thank period of time over the last few A You’re welcome. months of life. her BY MR. you PUSKAS: JUDGE Did protest SPRAGUE: to Judge being Lokuta about asked can, IfQ. how much time were personal directed to these do matters? spending at home Lokuta’s during didn’t, Honor, these tasks? Your because I was A intimidated. lot of times what A. What it turned probably into was after happen coming would is off morning like the usually was at like day you’re being yelled where work. And it then if wasn’t some- at, and, know, you’re like I thing with the court—or the right don’t I can do know what in, wasn’t yet there and she called thinking lit- maybe here. I’m for a usually she speak to Susan. tle bit time it will take the stress
Susan usually took her calls. And a judge. off. I’m new. She’s say, Judy she’d I need to come up know, I’m say? do You What know, Dupont, you to can tell it, thinking, just try get through at stop maybe, Sam’s for time, know, bide make the example, pick up a container or can, try find best it know, few containers. You oth- job. another didn’t have me like to some storage, needed do employment, er storing for her and items also
maybe Wegman’s, bring really like—I didn’t know stop no, you know, say I’m like if I up, some stuff do. do, going
house. what’s *104 I it And I A. Yes. make worse. was scared. just thought,
was intimidated. And I you literally Q. you And described thаt it, know, you try to make the best of through not the rooms. could walk maybe this turn around somehow will youDo recall that? better, you and maybe get it will yes. through, A. to tough It was walk know, just, know, a maybe you this is the certainly given that status of Q. So thing. short rooms, not rooms those rooms were it realized that I wasn’t But —I cleaned, that correct? You were anything to learn more there as your down on hands get couldn’t attorney. really given an I wasn’t —I and knees to clean? couple oppor- really probably — there, Oh, no, you couldn’t, not no. really at the most do some- tunities to thought, you that thing way. And telling the Q. yet do recall know, get for me to out of it’s time got your down on Board that here and move on. I left without the scrubbing knees hands and job happened. and—That’s what floor? (N.T. 1486-42). passed After Julie had Upstairs. Flaherty Ms. cross-examined about those away, happened what is subject testimony and her then this was: get to upstairs starting rooms were telling recall Board And do the had dirty, get to cluttered. And she that first floor area was filled
that straighten up, it me if I asked would to point with stored items the where straighten up it agreed and I rooms, in you couldn’t even walk know, floor, and, the wash correct? the floor. scrub rooms, Yes, yes. in actually had And she mentioned only part So the of the house do hands that it’s better to it housecleaning required would have well, I’ll thought, knees. And was the second floor? do hands and knees because it on Well, no, it was You get because her mad. what don’t want know, the downstairs was that there was I’ll to do—inside do straighten the that she I’ll place thinking stuff all I’m this—and over out, and, know, straightened wanted she want- it will make up, (N.T. 1450-52). containers, put she wanted put happy. ed orderly in an fash- put on shelves or con Respondent’s findWe there, ion, if because walked testimony the set out described in duct mean, shop- things were —There Flaherty is respect Judith above with bedroom, back ping bags like the convincing evidence violation clear and stuff, food, types of col- all different of: on the bed. lectibles whatever 18(d)(1) Y, the 1. Article Section on the floor. There There was stuff Pennsylvania for the Constitution rhyme to it. no or reason judi- brings is conduct such that to, Well, given my question went charged disrepute into cial office so these rooms the fact that Count described them as hav- filled—You employees to Respondent’s of court 4 feet use items 3 to off ing piled repugnant is personal do work youDo recall that? floor. every daresay and an affront to judge expectations
Court reasonable judicial employee within the Common- of public expectation would include utterly disheartening wealth. from require that a her law the perspective taxpayers and citi- spend raking judge’s clerk to her time zenry served County Luzerne yard, judge’s things bubble wrapping the Court of Common Pleas. Despite Respon- scrubbing judge’s floors. efforts, dent’s downplay best she could not *105 has not We find Board to this Court the misappropriation of Ju- by clear convincing established evi Flaherty’s dith services inadvertent or Respondent’s assign dence that inconsequential. contrary, To the conduct scope broad, of the misappropriation ing Rebecca Sammon to out letters of send bold impossible to overlook. possibility condolence and to look into the legal remedy of a for interference with her Flaherty Judith manipulated who was judicial responsibilities was so extreme as by woman, the Respondent young was a brings judicial be such that office freshly graduated from law school who had disrepute.36 into yet not legal position held a or for worked judge. She by was intimidated the Re-
spondent. As supra, good days described I. THE VIOLET O’BRIEN CASE at work for her days were Findings of Fact not path Respondent’s within the of wrath. began
When she her employment, she did 75. Eugene Violet O’Brien and O’Brien her, expected know what was of and v. Nesbitt Hospital Henry Memorial Ale pressed, have been hard in any xanderian, Wyoming M.D. and the Valley event, challenge the directives of the Health System, Inc. was a medical mal (as Respondent quoted if from the —even practice case which was filed Luzerne above) Notes of Testimony it meant scrub- County Court of Pleas in Common 1995. bing the floor of Respondent’s house on Its docket number was of 1995. 3577-C hands and knees. plaintiffs by 76. The represented were By any standard imposed by heretofore Foley Foley, Thomas and Michael Court, this per- extensive use of court McLane, Foley, McGregor McDonald & sonnel to carry out the personal business Scranton, Pennsylvania. and chores of judge’s at the resi- During May 77. elsewhere, dence and and June 2001 the de- is so extreme as to constitute fendants filed Motions for Partial conduct Sum- brings judi- which Smith, mary Judgment cial office into disrepute. See In re and for Preclusion of Tes- (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1996) 687 A.2d timony plaintiffs’ 1229 expert witness. The Furthermore, other supra. cases cited assigned we Motions Respondent Berkhimer, 36. We position magisterial mention that in In re 877 of his business for 579, (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005), business, A.2d 595 we held occupation, profession other that the Board had established that Berkhim- gainful pursuit. employees er’s use of his court to send out comparable provision There is in the Code no “ongoing political similar letters was an cam- Berkhimer, of Judicial In Conduct. there was paign improve prospects ... his for re- finding Respondent's no conduct was so election” and as such was a violation of Rule bring judicial extreme so as into office Governing 3B. of the Rules Standards of Con- disrepute nor did the Board make such a provides duct of District Justices which that: charge. justice permit A district shall not use or premises use of the established for the dis- 1104 17,
disposition. August Respon- nothing On 2001. There is this record granting dent entered an Order the Mo- which establishes whether briefs were filed (See 2). tions. Board Exhibits 1 and argument place. or whether the took 21, 2001, August plaintiffs 78. On filed early Respondent 81. In asked a “Motion for Respondent Recusa- Krohn, Ted her senior law clerk at the tion” Respondent and for the vacation of time, to file review the Violet O’Brien the Order Respondent entered Au- opinion draft an for her consideration on (Board 1). 17, gust In Exhibit the Motion for Recusal. Krohn reviewed plaintiffs Motion set forth two “Circum- occasions, and, the file on several before they alleged required stances” which Re- draft, commencing Respon- with the told spondent to recuse. On October 2001 dent that he didn’t know how he could plaintiffs Supplemental filed a Motion re- opinion denying draft an the recusal. questing the same relief in which set that, Upon hearing said to “Supplemental forth five Circumstances” [plaintiffs’ Krohn “I him want cut *106 (Board alleged require to recusal. Exhibit asshole,” lawyer, Foley] a Krohn re- new 2). Thereafter, plaintiffs allegedly filed plied that he not the opinion could draft Supplemental another Motion in which five regard you’ve requested.” “in the “Supplemental are Circumstances” set (N.T. Krohn). 36-37,139, 3626 (Board 3). forth. Exhibit The “Circum- 82. Krohn no further had connection Supplemental stances” set forth in this (N.T. 36-37, the Violet O’Brien case. with largely Motion are the same as the Cir- Krohn). in 139 Supplemental cumstances listed the first Motion. Board Exhibit 3 is undated and thereafter, shortly 83. Sometime Re-
no filing appears date of on the docket. Mecadon, spondent jun- asked Girard (Exhibit R-1098). in There is no evidence clerk, ior law write memorandum that it filed. record was ever opinion connection O’Brien with the Violet (Exhibit R-1098) 79. The docket indi- (N.T. on the recusal 904-05 Meca- issue. cates that the in the defendants case filed Krohn). don; N.T. 37 responses allegations plaintiffs’ to the 84. a lengthy Mecadon wrote memo- Supplemental Motion and Motion for Re- Respondent on the randum “Violet The docket entries cusation. show these 13, February O’Brien Recusal” on 2002. 27, August on October were filed 2001 and (N.T. R-354). Mecadon, In 905 Exhibit 30, However, responses these are why out reasons the memo Mecadon set part not of this record. (Ex- Respondent deny could the Motion. 80. The docket entries establish that R-354). hibit 12, 2001, Respondent on or- September 20, February Respondent 85. On 2002 parties dered the to submit briefs (Exhibits argu- denied the Motion for Recusal. subject of her recusal and scheduled 1098).37 27, ment on the for question November R-669 by denying the Respondent 37. Both and Gushanas contra- been told Krohn that recusal wrong wrote motion would be and that he didn't dicted Krohn and testified that Krohn Lokuta; that, doing opinion opinion. N.T.2026 think he could write an that, Gushanas). unlikely highly unlikely, is we Resolution of this issue is not think— — that, notwithstanding testimony Respondent would in- limited examination of the of opinion that Krohn write the and that Respondent and Gushanas. Two sist Krohn v. (did) actually Krohn write it. The oth- other circumstances attend our decision to if, that, exchange having One is er consideration is after his credit Krohn's version.
H05 Discussion that, only way judge can “hurt” a inclined, if lawyer, so is to hurt the client. There are two distinct issues for us to all, lawyer’s After not the it’s case—it’s the address here. case; lawyers client’s judge who ask a One is Respondent’s whether failure and to recuse of because bias toward them are refusal recuse is a of violation Canon themselves, doing not to protect so but to 3C.(l)(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. protect their clients. This violation is specifically charged We have never this question addressed Board Count 5. nor has Supreme our We have Court. The other Respondent’s issue whether quick jurisdic- never been turn to other response remark in to Krohn’s advice that tions, nevertheless we find a case decided he didn’t know how he could draft an in the Appeal Fourth District Court opinion denying recusal, i.e., that she Florida squarely which deals with the (Krohn) wanted him to cut him “a (Foley) question a thoughtful and well consid- asshole,” new was conduct subjects which opinion. ered discipline under Counts In question that case the was whether and 6 Complaint. Board’s disqualification was required We will discuss Count 5 first where he stated at a pre-trial proceeding 3C.(l)(a) which charges a violation of lawyers one of the “should be in the Code of Judicial Conduct. client, lawyer’s Hays- this case.” The Dr. *107 3C.(l)(a) lip, Canon moved for recusal. The provides: governing statute, 3C.(l)(a), Florida like our Canon (1) Judges should disqualify themselves referred only prejudice against a “par- in a proceeding which impartiali- their in ty” requiring as recusal. ty might reasonably questioned, be in- cluding but not limited to instances In holding disqualification that where: judge necessary was the Court of Appeal (a) they personal have a said: preju- bias or
dice concerning a ... party only remaining question The is whether remarks, alleged the which were direct- We note at the outset that the canon ed at defense counsel rather than his speaks of “concerning and, bias a party,” client, reasonably justify could the ease, in this Respondent’s bias, if any, is client’s fear that he would receive a not not asserted to concern a but party rather fair trial at the respondent hands of the the party's lawyer. hold, however, We judge. that, case, in judge’s this this against bias
this affected his clients’ case. We lawyer was such that it undoubtedly do hold [**] % * every against that in lawyer case bias a Though sep- a client and his counsel are will necessarily entities, be transferred to the client they arate share a common so that disqualification required. attorney-client would be bond the forged rela- However, dowe observe that this common- tionship tempered rigors in the ly Any lawyer will be the case. litigation. a few Most clients find court- years in experience and, courtrooms knows room to be an unfamiliar in some 13,
Respondent, February making Krohn continued to be involved on 2002 (which in the opinion, denying case wrote the a Respon- what is case for the Motion doing later)? writing long Mecadon memorandum dent did one week 1106 3C.(l)(a)
instances, atmosphere lishes of Canon uncomfortable a violation Conduct, and so it is not unusual that entrust so we must de- Code of Judicial into their* themselves counsel’s care evidence introduced termine whether Thus, Respondent’s their interests one. it is view at the that trial establishes reasonably client understandable would be- “impartiality might ques- upon come concerned and fearful learn- tioned.” antipathy the trial an ing that has in point on the contained Evidence lawyer expressed his toward has 2, i.e., the allegations Board Exhibits 1 and that the client’s “should opinion counsel plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusation and not be in this case.” Supplemental These set Motion. Motions (Fla.
Hayslip
Douglas,
v.
We
in
never seen.39
plaintiffs
the
this case estab-
had
whether
evidence
harmony
mally
weighing strongly
appears
This conclusion
be in
this is
factor
38.
(c)
See,
(b),
against
provisions
Pap
of
with the
subsections
Commonwealth v.
recusal.
3D.(1)
(d)
specify
pas,
(Pa.Super.2004);
certain
of Canon
which
829
845 A.2d
Common
(Pa.Su
disqualification
where
is man-
Stafford,
circumstances
A.2d 489
v.
749
wealth
datory.
Fidelity
These circumstances include cases
per.2000);
States
&
Ware v. United
judge’s impartiality might
501,
where the
reason-
Pa.Super.
Guaranty Company, 395
577
ably
questioned
judge's
be
because the
rela-
(1990);
Casey,
v.
Pa.
A.2d
523
Goodheart
lawyer
tionship
188,
in
(1989);
the case is such
by
Reilly Reilly v.
H07 lawyer Foley lawyer 2. his Foley Plaintiffs’ Thomas had served as wife’s proceedings. those Miller, Esquire the husband of Jill who
had testified in an earlier Judicial Conduct
Miller to
Respondent
8.
had asked Jill
(Dr.
investigation
Respondent
give Nancy
Board
Alexanderian
Alexanderi-
—and
(N.T. 2863).
years.
grass”
got
ruling
A. Five
see if he
a favorable
Court,
matter,
then,
why
The
had
underlying
interested
case
if he
on the
Recusal,
long,
didn't,
inquired:
been
so
around
filing
see
the Motion for
lawyers
199,
JUDGE O’TOOLE: Were the
Casey, supra,
at
Goodheart v.
at
565 A.2d
ready
try
period
it for
some
time?
getting
apple.”
at the
763 and thus
"two bites
2864).
cases,
But, in those
it was the conduct of the
Honor,
Respondent answered:
I didn’t
Your
(or
party
lawyer)
provoking
his
which was
get any additional involvement in that matter
disapproval of the court.
In those cases the
They
until 2001.
cal-
didn’t
individual
judge
judge
conduct of the
—whether
assignments
any specific judge.
endar or
(N.T. 2864).
violating the Code of Judicial Conduct—was
us,
not an issue. In the case now before
then,
The
then
Court
asked: Just so I’m clear
function;
is the
Indeed it is not the
issue.
nor
questions
by
the answer to the
asked
authority
appellate
it within
is
courts,
of the
answers,
Court and
had said earlier
deciding
controversies between liti
that the case had been in front of
for five
gants,
to decide whether a
violated
has
years, then there was a motion for recusal.
the canon of the Code of Judicial Conduct
I take it that
meant that it commenced
requiring
recusal
certain circumstances—
earlier,
point
years
five
one
but it had not
any
Reilly Reilly
by
other Canon.
v.
South
been in front of
for those whole five
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
eastern
years,
point
up
but at one
later came
204,
(1985);
Pa.
ceived objection. into this record without is, is, The issue the test in the words of Nevertheless, we would not be comfortable canon, impartiality “whether [her] 3C.(l)(a) finding a violation of Canon based might reasonably questioned.” be allegations. on those The evidence is not (or lawyer) If Mr. or Mrs. O’Brien their clear and convincing. heard, about, or found out Respondent’s Thus, we find that the Board did not declaration, and the under circumstances prove that the alleged by “Circumstances” made, can it imagined which was be Foley established convincing clear and instantly questioned Respondent’s “impartiality evidence that And, Respondent’s can it impartiality? *110 reasonably might questioned” requiring be imagined seriously could be con- 3C.(l)(a). disqualification her under Canon tended that it would not have been emi- However, case, in this we have other evi- them do nently reasonable for so? on the point. dence rarely This case is rare because is thе case, impartiality produced
In this have Krohn’s tes of out of we evidence i.e., timony Respondent’s by of to him the the direct judge, instructions mouth of Usually evidence. disqualification required the comes is in evidence circum- i.e., from surrounding circumstances, the stances where: See,
circumstantial evidence. the e.g., judge] lawyer served as a in the “[the Court, recently by case most decided controversy, lawyer matter in or a 875, (2005); In re Zupsic, 893 A.2d judge] 890-95 previously practiced whom [the Inquiry and Judicial and v. during Review Board served such law association as Fink, 208, (1987), lawyer 516 Pa. concerning A.2d 358 the matter.” (C.(l)(b)); is Supreme which a case came to the which
Court through constitutionally (or her) the pre- or his spouse The has a (or scribed mechanism for of enforcement third cousin who has a third cousin 3C.(1). officer, Canon spouse) whose is “an director party; trustee of a acting [or] who is as Fink, In Respondent the elected (C.(l)(d)(i) lawyer in proceeding.” the office in 1977 after an acrimonious cam- (ii)).40 and paign incumbent, in he which the defeated Disqualification required is in the cir- Judge Patterson. In (b), cumstances described in subsections Patterson’s son was brought before the (c) (d) and the Supreme because Court on Respondent drug charges, related the considers that in those is circumstances it requested defendant Respondent’s recusal. judge’s established that the “impartiality Respondent denied the request he stating might reasonably questioned.” be We be- had no bad feelings about the defendant’s lieve the of Respondent’s evidence impar- father holy ghost “The came tiality in this clearly case establishes more down on shoulder and cleansed me convincingly and more the reasonableness all feelings.” those Supreme The Court of questioning impartiality in than the held that Respondent’s failure to recuse (b), circumstances in described subsections 3C.(l)(a) awas violation of for, Canon (c) (d) 3C.(1). of Canon circumstances, these impartiality his self-proclamation This partiality “might reasonably questioned.” be it unnecessary makes tous undertake certainly agree We Supreme with the the evaluate reasons for recusal ad- Court in those circumstances —ac- vanced the O’Briens in an effort cording to that circumstantial evidence— determine whether those “Circumstances” impartiality might Fink’s reason- were such that her “impartiality might ably questioned; have been but evi- reasonably questioned.” dence in that case is far from as clear and briefly inability We address of our convincing the direct evidence of the dissenting colleagues to believe that questionableness of the impartiality of this Respondent said what Ted Krohn said she this record. had to him writing opinion said about vein,
In the same we think attention to in the Violet O’Brien case—as well as in specific circumstances certainly respect which dis- Bonner case. We qualification compulsory under the can- their approach careful conscientious on helps put point evidence fact-finding; but we do not understand this case in perspective. We refer to sub- their hesitation to believe Krohn’s testimo- (b), (c) (d) C.(l) sections ny Section about these Respon- encounters with the canon. For example, in those sections dent. We mention that Krohn testified See, also, (l)(d)(ii) the Note after subsection of Canon 3C.
1110 refer In Opinion. heretofore in We many aspects Respondent’s of con- about Smith, Cicchetti, supra. In re supra, Bonner. re O’Brien and duct—not about Trkula, that the supra. clerk for In re We also find Respondent’s He senior law public expectations he was a of the years four and we believe reasonable over that respect in to all his testi- the a expectation credible witness would not include fact, mony. Respondent often referred a matter on the basis In would decide of law- antipathy as her “Clarence Dar- for one the admiringly personal to him of Cicchetti, See, Smith, not have had Trkula and appear yers. row.” Krohn does grind” Respondent. supra. He cited any “axe to with other cases He investigation. not initiate this did Smith, holding in In re 2. Our complaint the He not file a with Board. (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1996) re A.2d 1229 687 questions the Board’s in- answered the of finding Respondent’s that conduct quires the vestigator and testified at trial we prejudices here such that discussed credibility misgivings no about the of have justice. of proper the administration testimony. his that: In that case we held has We hold the Board established proper the ad- prejudices which Conduct convincing by clear and evidence Re- ... justice of conduct ministration in the Violet spondent’s failure recuse with those obstructs or interferes which case violation of Canon O’Brien systematic enable the activities which 3C.(l)(a) the of of Judicial Conduct. Code “sys- The term operation of the courts. charges turn now to the other We encompasses only operation” tematic the O’Brien and find related to Violet case adopted by courts which procedures the as conduct the case Respondent’s the functioning, but also standards aid clerk, her testimony in the of law related expected judicial of officers in conduct of Krohn, out clear and Mr. set above is Ted of the work of the performance the convincing evidence of violation of: Hence, judicial officer’s when a courts. V, 18(d)(1) § of Pennsyl- 1. Article the ex- from the standard departs conduct for the conduct is vania Constitution the judges and has effect pected of brings judicial the office such that sys- interfering with obstructing charged as in Count disrepute into functions of operation or normal tematic 2; court, affected, have his conduct will 18(d)(1) V, Pennsyl- § of the 2. Article of the courts. proper administration for the conduct is vania Constitution Smith, (emphasis 1237 supra, ad- prejudices proper such that Court’s). justice charged ministration question no that when certainly There is 6; and Count to cut Mr. told Mr. Krohn of Judicial 3. Canon 2A. the Code in the he opinion “a asshole” Foley new charged in Count Conduct as on the recusal mo- supposed draft findings in the discuss these We will “interfering system- tion, she was order listed above. or normal functions operation atic Smith, at 1237 and as we said resolve to court” Respondent’s 1. We find that prop- conduct will “[such] Motion Recusation plaintiffs’ decide the affected justice.” (emphasis against er administration satisfy personal bias so as to also, Court’s). See, Zupsic, In re satisfy lawyer is so extreme as plaintiffs’ (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005). cited A.2d out in the cases the standard set
mi Again, said in in quoted position judge. Judges we Smith and to influence the Zupsic: testify voluntarily should a char- acter witness. judicial
A officer engages who in conduct prejudices proper which administra- Cicchetti, In re supra, required we were justice tion of would have the added judge’s decide whether a sexual harass- element of a mental or state he which employee ment of a courthouse a vio- only she not that the knew conduct process lation of Canon 2. In that care- we neglect issue consisted of some im- or fully evaluated the breadth of the intended propriety, but also acted with the knowl- application of this Canon. We said: edge and intent that the conduct would 2 ... directed at Canon conduct [is] have a upon deleterious the ad- effect ... impugn which would or detract from justice, ministration example, by of the integrity impartiality judi- of the affecting a specific outcome. ciary. “Integrity” pari must be read in Smith, 1238, supra, at Zupsic, supra, at “impartiality” materia ... Can- Court’s). (emphasis 889 ..., on 2 Both of these words [and open It is not question that when judges carefully pre- Canon exhort 2] Respondent [Foley] told Krohn to “cut him evenhandedness, appearance serve all of asshole,” Respondent’s new only purpose favoring appearing of not or to favor was to a specific outcome.”41 “[affect] case, being ap- either side in a Nor any question is there pearing from free influence. intended that her instruction to Krohn Cicchetti, In re supra, at 313. In that would have a deleterious effect on the opinion we continued: justice administration of and intended that 2 in general Canon is directed towards prejudice the rights of Mr. and potentially conduct which could cause Mrs. O’Brien to have the Motion decided public litigants or to believe that a on its merits. acting impartially. is not
We hold that Respondent’s conduct was Id. 2 We concluded Canon did not prejudices such that the proper adminis- (sexual harassment) proscribe the conduct justice. tration of Supreme there involved. The af- Court 3. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Con- firmed the specifi- decision Cicchetti and provides duct in pertinent part: cally approved our definition of the scope Judges respect should and comply application. Supreme the canon’s The with the law and should conduct them- Court held: at all selves times a manner that 2 similarly judicial Canon addresses the promotes public integ- confidence in the decision-making process and seeks to rity and impartiality judiciary. appearance avoid the of influence over B. Judges should not their fami- allow judicial Appellee activities. is not sub- social, ly, relationships or other to influ- ject to 2 censure for violation Canon ence their judicial judgment. conduct or based on his Ms. conduct toward They prestige should not lend the Brueggman independent because it was their private office to inter- advance decision-making of his duties. others; ests of they convey nor should Cicchetti, knowingly 183, 201, permit convey others to In re 560 Pa. 743 A.2d (2000). impression are in a special Which, cooperate, accomplished when Krohn refused to herself. *113 contrast, opinion In when this Re such an because the evidence was obvious spondent Mr. Krohn to telling was how “pretty Respondent clear-cut.” told acting make the decision she in the was Krohn that she to decide in Moreover, “decision-making process.” Re favor of the Bonners because awere spondent’s antipathetic to the conduct was family in prominent somewhat Italian judges exhortations of the canon for “to supported Respon- Hazleton area had who carefully preserve appearance all of even- to that effect. politically, dent words favoring and “of not either handedness” (N.T. 80, 82, 3609-12, 3615-17, 3640-41 side in In a case.” re Cicchetti. 697 A.2d Krohn).
at 313. hold that Respondent’s We deci Krohn Respondent’s employ 89. left sion to decide the Violet O’Brien case so shortly thereafter and did not draft that Mr. Foley provided would be with a Krohn). (N.T. in opinion the case. 3612 precisely new asshole is the conduct to 28, 2003, May Respondent 90. On en- directed, i.e., wards which Canon is “con adjudication an in tered favor of the defen- potentially pub duct which could cause the against company dants and the insurance lic or litigants to believe that a is not ordering obligated that State Farm to acting impartially.”
provide indemnity defense and under the J. THE BONNER CASE (Board 28). policy. insurance Exhibit Findings of Fact Discussion In April Respondent 86. of 2003 con- discussing efficacy Before of the non-jury declaratory
ducted a trial in a establishing any above facts as violation of judgment brought by action State Farm the Code Judicial Conduct or Con- Fire Casualty against Co. Neil and stitution, we address two matters raised Carmella Bonner. The issue the case by Respondent. Farm, State under an insur- whether The First Matter. The Board’s defendants, policy
ance it had issued to the no Complaint filed this case contains judgment declaring entitled to a that allegations relating Finding to of Fact duty indemnify it had no to defend or During permitted Nos. 86-90. the trial we liability defendants in connection for a Complaint to in the Board amend proper- death which had occurred on their (N.T. 28). produce relat Krohn, clude them and evidence ty. 78-80 Board Exhibit objected to ing Respondent to them. has clerk, Krohn, Respondent’s Ted law permitting the order amendment and to (N.T. Krohn). attended the trial. to the relating the admission of evidence trial, 88. After Krohn conclusion Respondent amendment. claims that the case in discussed rulings those she has been denied due in regard doing opinion. chambers an process allegations because these were not Krohn). 80, 3604, 3609 In that dis- ques no Complaint. in the While there is Respon- cussion Krohn made it known Complaint made no mention tion that the that, dent from what he had heard case,” of “the Bonner we hold that our court, weighed heavily in the case facts rulings permit the amendment and re company. Re- in favor of the insurance infringe did not or di ceive the evidence to find in spondent replied she wanted Respondent’s right process. to due minish against favor of the Bonners and the insur- is Respondent’s objection he is she replied ance Krohn company. prejudiced by able to draft the admission of this evi- didn’t if he would be know
1H3 it; however, Respondent, dence because she had no notice of she maintains it; ability “surprised” by surprised and her she was because wasn’t is, course, true; against Complaint. defend it is This compromised. seriously Respon considered Court That, however, is not the case here be- fact, position. a matter we dent’s As
cause of it. have notice She is not *114 initially ruled to exclude the evidence. Af it; surprised by ability and her to defend ter we reversed that further consideration against is compromised. it in. ruling permitted and it to come There for this. occasions, several reasons On three separate long before commenced, the trial Respondent received Respondent’s position 1. is that when- notice allegations of Krohn’s of her con- ever no mention of an event is made in a duct in the Bonner case. Complaint and evidence about the event is introduced, sought always to be there will 1. 21, She notified on June 2006 true; surprise. be That bemay but that the Board’s Supplemental Notice of Inves- the doesn’t mean that evidence can tigation. specific This notice was and de- (should) be never admitted. That doesn’t tailed entirely consistent with the tes- mean that Complaint Motions to Amend a timony presented at trial. (should) to Conform to the Evidence can 2. 26, She August was notified on 2006 granted.43 never when she was it deposi- asked about at her Pennsylvania Rule 1033 of the Rules of (Exhibit R-641). tion. This notice was governs Civil Procedure amendments of specific and detailed entirely consis- pleadings.44 provides: That Rule tent testimony with the presented at trial. party, by A either filed consent of the 3. 20, She was notified on December party by court, may or leave of adverse 2006 when the Board Respon- furnished action, any at change time form of dent with the Report of of Mr. Interview a party correct the name of or amend pre-trial Krоhn in discovery. Report This pleading. pleading his The amended specific entirely detailed and con- may aver or transactions occurrences sistent testimony presented with the at happened which have before or after the trial.42 filing original pleading, even So, Respondent did though they give receive notice and to a rise new cause surprised by was not may this evidence—she or action defense. An amendment knew all about it for a year pleading well over be made to conform the to the before the trial started. evidence offered admitted. Quite
42.In reported contrary, interview is that Krohn these Motions are well "guessed” family the name of the to be "Bal- They jurisprudence. known our are not course, possibly trami or Lombardo.” Of we uncommonly filed and it not uncommon for wrong now know that this was name of granted. to be —the them family is Bonner. But this is all irrele- way vant. name The of the case in no bears 44. We are careful to note while Rules hand; i.e., question on the here at whether govern procedure in of Civil Procedure do not Respondent told Krohn that she wanted the Court, they promulgated are often to deal policy case decided in favor of the defendant — questions we In face. such cases we do (she) (they) supported holder because he had guidance. not hesitate to refer to them for politically. "guessing” only Krohn's attempts served sidetrack the Board in its to find the file. 1114
Generally,
Respondent’s
conduct
amendments
evidence
allowed,
liberally
ab
pleadings are to be
the Bonner case.
prejudice
nonmoving party.
sent
to the
Second Matter. Much
The
194
County,
Weaver v. Franklin
918 A.2d
(and
Board’s) ina
made over Krohn’s
denied,
(Pa.Cmwlth.2007),
593 Pa.
appeal
by name
bility
identify
the Bonner case
(2007);
A.2d
Chaney
660
v. Mead
the ad
Respondent
objected
had
(Pa.Su
Center,
Medical
ville testimony of Krohn’s about mission also, see, per.2006); Sportsmen of Unified claims, because, tes case Pennsylvania Pennsylvania v. Game timony his eventual is tainted because (Pa.Cmwlth.2006). Comm’n, 903 A.2d by of the case name was identification permitted are at pleadings Amendments to violation of a se accomplished by Krohn’s time, before, including during, and order entered this Court questration *115 trial. v. after Horowitz Under Universal beginning of the trial. the Co., 473, Pa.Super. Ins. 580 writers (1990). First, identifi only Motion the reason the plead A.2d 395 to amend by an of case name ever became is addressed to sound discretion of trial cation the ing court, court’s is not maintain trial determination issue is because was appeal absent of of be disturbed abuse from the first time she heard ing, Mitchell, discretion, Corson, Sejpal through v. the first week allegations Krohn’s ’S., existed,” McKinley, trial, Tomhave & M.D. 445 Pa.Su “is the case “never that (1995). per. 665 A.2d totally a and “never happened.”46 fiction” However, by is not identifying a case name element; Prejudice key “surprise” is the testimony for the admission a condition no for prejudice ground without is exclud- that the decision ordering that a was “Surprise” ing prej- the evidence. without her) (or a case him be made before no right process to the to due udice a had party party favor of because ground excluding evidence. Re- (or her) So, in an election. supported him spondent’s not right process due was by inability identify the Bonner case notice of damaged because she had impediment to an admission name was not saying Krohn about the Bonner case was testimony. Krohn’s year a the Board for well over before that sought Second, to introduce evidence. identification Krohn’s eventual not ac- by Bonner case name was of the Respondent’s ability to was defend se- complished by violation Court’s compromised our rul- prejudiced questration order. was, As it ing to admit evidence. to him way Krohn testified as what she said it happened that the Krohn testified case. She denied it.45 about the Bonner was as follows: If the Bonner case had been reference to Now, Krohn, you explain Mr. would Complaint, testimony in the Krohn’s to iden- to the how came Court she would have have been the same. And tify case? that Nothing it. would have been dif- denied my testimony initially, was A. After ferent. evening at to dinner at the staying, hotel permit where ruling affirm our
We Marriott, and there Courtyard to conform Complaint Board to amend its (N.T. by Respondent’s counsel 46. Statements Lokuta. 45. N.T. 3791-95 81). 1H5 were three people got County other there who When I back to Luzerne a also, believe, later, had testified days protho- few went to the case.47 And me asked how notary’s office and checked. Krohn).48
went. 3605-06 And I I thought very said it went Respondent contends Krohn’s well, except for there a case exchange with the other witnesses I just put my couldn’t that I finger on sequestration hotel a violation of the was involved in. And I said order. couldn’t recall the name of the case. sequestration The order was: gentlemen And one of the asked All JUDGE SPRAGUE: witnesses will me—I don’t whether it Mr. know sequestered. up It’s to counsel to Sharkey Onderko, or Michael who I see that all seques- their witnesses are believe was law clerk to Au- continuing obligation tered. This is a gello clerk, tipstaff, law but a —not (N.T. 23). all counsel. gentleman or a by the name of—I Pennsylvania Rule 615 of the Rules of can’t think of even his name. He governs Evidence sequestration of wit- jury
worked for the board. And in pertinent part: nesses. states me, know, said, asked about—he At request party of a or on its own what kind of a case? *116 motion, may the court order witnesses said, remember, but, I don’t sequestered they so that cannot learn of said, I do remember it was a drown- testimony the of other witnesses.
ing involving family and some sort Pa.R.E.615. of a recreational in group Hazleton. said, oh,
And all three of them instantly apparent is that Krohn did you’re talking about the Bonner case. testimony any not “learn of’ the of of the And at that point, rang it gentlemen bell. three he encountered They They 47. hadn’t. testimony), Respondent objected testified later —about Krohn's totally any change unrelated matters. "Respon- in that Order because prejudiced by testimony dent will be Krohn’s because she did not receivenotice the Bon- (on 16, January 48. Krohn further testified 19, 2007, ner case until November less than 2008): phase three weeks the second before Now, right. All part as had of— (which 10, 2007). began trial" on December mentioned that went to the Prothonota- Yet, added.) (Emphasis days if a few after ry examined their file? 24, September 2007 the file was in A. No. I examined the docket sheet. I had by Lokuta's office as Krohn said he was told by asked for the file and was told of the one Prothonotary, Respondent’s repre- then prothonotary’s in the clerks office that the January sentation in 2008 that she didn’t find prothonotary’s actual was with file out that the Bonner was the "Bonner case Lokuta. But I was able to access the dock- case” until she was told the Board on ets, prothonotary’s which remain in the of- 19, 2007, Moreover, November is false. if it added.) (Emphasis fice. 3607 false, representation is true that that is then it Krohn). seriously must be considered that there was 24, days" September a "few This was after Respondent never a time was unable to 2007, the date on which had Krohn first testi- identify the Bonner case as the "Bonner fied. After that he told the Board the name of case.” the case and the Board told the recognize We that what he Krohn said 19, 9, 2008, January prothonotary’s hearsay on Novembеr 2007. On told in the office is but response objection; in her to the Board’s Motion for it came in without and we see no (of excluding up. Reconsideration our Order reason to believe Krohn made it seques- did not September
hotel after he Thus Krohn violate testified tration order. testimony 2007. Their was not even dis- three gentlemen cussed. Krohn told the question We address now the whether that he couldn’t remember the name of a that he instructions to Krohn Respondent’s If, argument case. for the sake of could the Bon- opinion draft an “in favor of thereby gen- the three considered had family because this was a who ners” testimony, it tlemen of’ Krohn’s “learn[ed] politically was a violation supported of no moment and no violation of is of Judicial precepts of the of the Code sequestration order because what or the We find Conduct Constitution. learned from Krohn had no connection in the Respondent’s conduct as related testimony. They with their
whatsoever Krohn, clerk, testimony of her law Mr. Ted testify there to about the Bonner weren’t 86-90, Findings out in of Fact Nos. is set Sharkey testify about case. was there of violation convincing clear and evidence what it was like to be court administrator of: days. The County in Luzerne those 3C.(l)(a) 1. of the of Judi- Canon Code two, Refowieh, other Onderko and 5; charged cial as Count Conduct testify there to about the Adonizio inci- 18(d)(1) V, Pennsyl- § of the Article dent. for the conduct is vania Constitution Supreme Our Court has stated: judicial brings office such charged in Count disrepute into as purpose sequestration The of wit- possibility 2; nesses to reduce the that a 18(d)(1) V, Pennsyl- § 3. Article in the may, witness from what he hears the conduct is vania Constitution for courtroom, improperly mold his testimo- proper ad- prejudices such that ny plan to fit some not riveted to charged justice ministration of standards of truth.49 *117 6; and Count Smith, 9, v. 424 Pa. 225 Commonwealth 4. 2A. of the of Judicial Canon Code (1967). 691, A.2d 4. charged as in Count Conduct if Supreme Even the words of the Court findings the We will discuss these apply a witness are extended what order listed above. courtroom, suggestion hears outside the 3C.(l)(a) the canon is which actions were in conflict with Canon that Krohn’s disqualify themselves by requires judges stated purpose sequestration impartiality “their Court, any proceeding in which undeserving of consid- Supreme reasonably might questioned” be eration. —“where a go along, that there is such any we evidence "plan” had it was to establish 49. If Krohn 82-83). (N.T. case. by Re- He had been called a liar the truth. being on that first When Krohn was excused insisting spondent who was that the Bonner day of trial the Court asked: existed,” fiction,” "a and case "never and was May witness be ex- JUDGE SPRAGUE: that, therefore, on, making so Krohn cused? therefore, plan, was to up. it all Krohn’s Yes, MR. PUSKAS: Your Honor. the truth. prove that it did exist—which was Subject your proving JUDGE SPRAGUE: Moreover, essentially challenged this Court case, is excused the witness there is such a The Court said: him to do that. 170-71). (N.T. of the Court. with the thanks say ... I must to counsel JUDGE SPRAGUE: Krohn). want, (N.T. point as 50. at some Court’s H17 Later, personal prejudice sion, have a that lying. bias she testified were party.” concerning against a all 30 witnesses who testified Court, curious, lying. The Re- asked Respondent’s conduct in the Bonner spondent: image case is the mirror of her conduct in SPRAGUE; all JUDGE You’ve heard the Violet O’Brien case. The conduct is these jumping witnesses —I’m same, same; the violation is the apologize, ahead and I Mr. Sinatra. only difference is that in the Violet O’Brien said, you’ve But heard —as Respondent’s prejudice case was directed here, you’ve against you’ve sat listened. And party a and in the case Bonner it intently listened party. was directed a In both favor every each and witness. cases watched proclamation by there was self that she was prejudiced in- You’ve heard whole stream of wit- cluding why. the reason As in the O’Brien describing you in the un- nesses most case Respondent’s this establishes that terms, flattering screaming, yelling. as personal “impartial- bias such that her repeat all. don’t have to ity might reasonably questioned.” But is there common connection see, between all these people
Thus, hold that the has we Board estab- they’re them be saying all to what by lished clear convincing evidence saying? Respondent’s failure to recuse in the Bonner case was a violation Canon THE all They WITNESS: serve 3C.(l)(a). president judge. the benefit of the They’re by all employed Luzerne 2. 3. 4. As to For the reasons County. They very are a en- cliquish set forth in our Discussion of the Violet 2462-63). vironment. O’Brien we case find that the Board has curious, inquired Still the Court further convincing established clear and evi of Respondent: Respondent’s dence that conduct sorry SPRAGUE: I’m in- JUDGE Bonner case was a violation of: terrupt you, but does that have 18(d)(1) V, § Pennsyl- Article here, to do with the accusations made vania Constitution for conduct is such in your view? brings judicial office into disre- Well, THE I think that WITNESS: pute charged in Count *118 there’s this motive. V, 18(d)(1) § 3. Pennsyl- Article of the You think JUDGE SPRAGUE: for the vania Constitution conduct is such there’s what? prejudices proper that the administration THE WITNESS: A motive. There’s justice charged as Count exacting. I exacting try an —I’m 4. 2A. Canon of the Code of Judicial be, in my Maybe courtroom. in the charged as in Count Conduct bookkeeping standards as to office-—(cid:127) own DEFENSE RESPONDENT’S K. you SPRAGUE: Do think JUDGE Conspiracy conspiracy a all by peo- there’s these get you? ple seen, Respondent As we have testified
that she believed the five THE I think that as a witnesses who WITNESS: Mr. judge, corroborated Adonizio’sversion of the maverick I’ve never been wel- I is a Adonizio incident and contradicted ver- comed. think that there desire recall, Q. Judge Lokuta, you your me do indepen- to have removed as an direct, court, you judge testimony agreed dent on the Eleventh Ju- on that dicial asked if Sprague District. by conspiracy that the is believed be, my response people higher up chain will- believe, yes, many I Your Honor. ing pawns them? below times, in conspiracy theories. I know date, at that an earlier but— power that elite is believe and I’m to be trying glib. not this, directing yes. that a believe there’s concerted Lokuta, fact, right. All In effort make sure that Ann Lokuta testified, think, that these sitting no a in the longer judge people pleasure serve at Eleventh Judicial District. all of these president judge, people JUDGE SPRAGUE: And is it are the direct control of the under thought by that is a conspiracy president judge. chain, up people higher and the testimony? recall Do testified, may others that have be will- Yes, testimony. I do recall ing pawns that? (N.T. 2992-93). trying I’m to understand that. that, fact, many THE In yes. WITNESS: think of these witnesses were by logical employed County think that one could the Luzerne Common give testimony analysis. nexus to that Pleas the time of their Court at thus, were not “under the direct con- people I think these at serve serving president trol” of leisure of All president judge. This includes: Murtha- “his leisure.” list of these people are under direct Krohn, Sammon, Cronin, Sallemi, Cowley, president judge. control of the Stankus, Violi, Flaherty, Youngclaus, Me- 2466-68). cadon and Kostelaba. When this was no give Respon We credence to attention, ex- brought Respondent’s to her dent’s the 30 perception —conclusion—that always often tortured and planations were are ter witnesses called the Board so examples set forth attenuated. We some by, to, the rorized or at least so beholden explanations. of her president judge that each one decided Virginia Murtha-Cowley (employed On stand, court, come to take the witness by the Education Asso- truth, Pennsylvania State an oath to tell the and then swear ciation): tell after after lie lie lie—all order
“get” Judge Lokuta. Q. Judge Lokuta, public did assistant Cowley not wel- Virginia defender
First, these as we assess witnesses you are maver- truthful; come because testimony truthful their *119 ick judge? do not believe these witnesses we perjury presi- commit because the would not Virginia Murtha-Cowley did them if he judge dent wanted to—even a me because I was maver- welcome did. be ick because she judge, wanted Second, very part group clear because she wants Respondent was to be Eleventh Judi- about her that the witnesses a conviction And she wants to be lying about the reason for it. On cial District. accepted by judges. the other asked: cross-examination
1H9 little that was say very him Ann Lo- heard against she testifies When Judge Lokuta. damaging to kuta, acceptance. she extends JUDGE SPRAGUE: So answer
is, you respect that yes, believe with BY MR. PUSKAS: individual, opposi- that of her part Lokuta, acknowl- Q. Judge you have influenced you testimony tion to is Barry Stan- believe edged judge; a by your being maverick I asked conspiracy. of a part kus is that correct? way. You why you felt that Yes, Honor. THE Your WITNESS: budget- it had to do with mentioned (N.T. 2991). president ing, which involved judge. (the Barry elected sheriff of On Stankus County)51:
Luzerne not whether or When asked and testified panel he came before this a Barry Do Stankus is believe untruthfully, then said never conspiracy you, part against of a untruthfully— said he testified Judge Lokuta? Objection.
MR. SINATRA: Yes, I do. Objection over- JUDGE SPRAGUE: a conspiracy? does he fit into How was, you question last ruled. The A. Because problems there were with that he testified untruthful- never said working through budgeting ly, correct? could be prisoners courts and when Correct, A said he testified never transported or not. And these are way. matters that out worked
through meetings the sheriff BY MR. PUSKUS: president judge.
and the Barry conspira- Stankus’ Q. So what is So is it contention that now- matter? torial action Stankus, Barry former Sheriff Objection MR. SINATRA: to the panel he came before this and testi- question. form of the fied, untruthfully he so because Overruled. JUDGE SPRAGUE: budgeting concerns? Well, defines depends on how one object MR. SINATRA: I’m cog You could have a conspiracy. question. to the form of the a within cog or wheel within JUDGE SPRAGUE: Overruled. all different You could have wheel. un- say. I didn’t that he testified out. You’re coming branches all, at-
truthfully. you’re First of this is one concentric saying say tributing totality that to me. I didn’t You can have a circle. responding
that. So I’m not to that might This be— conspirators. question as asked. That’s me, Excuse SPRAGUE: JUDGE ever said. I’ve question— I think the Lokuta. incorrect, Counsel, you correct if I am perhaps I can com- I heard —and is, having question testimony. me—I believe ment on the sheriffs election. testimony, ed in the November 2007 time of his Mr. Stankus 51. At the *120 sheriff, having longer the been defeat- was no stated that this part individual is of a A. No. I believe that she solicited their conspiracy, you (N.T. what do 3014-15). believe is his cooperation. part of the conspiracy. That is the On Ted Krohn (Respondent’s former law question. clerk, in private practice): now
A. (Continuing) Initially, Mr. Stankus Q. Lokuta, Judge you do recall that having problems in terms of you testified that your former sen- budgeting, problems terms of clerk, ior Krohn, law Ted was some- court, with the he where would have you one endearingly called Clarence prisoners his transported. Darrow? IAnd that that know was worked Yes, A. time, at the I did call him that. out during period the time with Q. you agree Do that testified you Conahan. Judge Olszewski and I had considered him to be like a father to problems some frame, time had a great deal of and I think there was an exhibit. respect for the man? So I believe that there is a desire to say that, A. yes. align president with the judge. IAnd Q. you agree Would with me that as that, Stankus, believe from Mr. your clerk, senior law he at served longer sheriff, because he’s no has your pleasure, not the pleasure of control over certain of his employees the president judge, correct? (N.T. that could come testify. A. Correct. 3007-11). Q. All right. And once he left (the On Jill Moran prothonotary elected employ, he worked for himself his County): Luzerne private practice, own correct? BY MR. PUSKAS: A. I don’t know that he went back to Q. you agree me, Would with private practice. I think he’s work- Lokuta, Moran, that Jill as the ing on development now, a land but elected prothonotary of Luzerne I’m not sure. County, does not plea- serve Q. He does not in any capacity work president sure of the judge? county? A. I’ll agree that she does I don’t know that. I haven’t not. She’s an elected official row checked. officer. Q. Do believe Jill Moran is BY MR. PUSKAS: part of a conspiracy against you? youDo believe Ted Krohn is part of Yes, I do. conspiracy against you, Judge Lo- Jill How does Moran fit into this kuta? notion conspiracy? Yes, I do. IA. Jill believe Moran directed certain Q. How does Ted Krohn fit into this testify against clerks to me. IAnd notion of conspiracy? know that overtures were made of figured haven’t that one out exact- other clerks testify. who would not 3018). ly.... 3015-16, “directed,” you say When do mean she ordered other clerks to Ingrid On (employed Cronin the pub- testify against you? lic defender’s office of the United States
H21 District for the Middle Could I ask Court District “JUDGE SPRAGUE: Pennsylvania): you again, getting my original back question, under do influence whose Lokuta,
Q. Now, Judge do recall un- you believe she would be or was Ingrid Cronin she ceased testified der?” working as an at- assistant district torney in August of 2004. She now referencing This Rebecca Sam- is an public works as federal assistant mon. defender? “THE I believe she WITNESS:
A. Yes. influence of came under Susan right. Ingrid All So Cronin came Weber. Susan Weber was a wonder- testified, panel before this she ful sold saleswoman. She me on the job no County had in the Luzerne back, belief that she come would system, court correct? hard, to work never try she A. Correct. did, Your Honor.” you place Ingrid How do Cronin right. All “JUDGE SPRAGUE: conspiracy? Thank you.” Ingrid through Cronin working your Do testi- agree this DA’s very office. She was close mony, Judge Lokuta? with other members of court. read, my testimony. A. That was as
But I think Ingrid Cronin’s testimo- ny actually me, helped because she said that she’s seen other court re- nonetheless, it your Is contention
porters being— that Rebecca Sammon came before Lokuta, JUDGE SPRAGUE: panel untruthfully and testified again, you do have a tendency to start spell under oath because some making speech. some sort of by cast over her Susan Weber? was, question The how do see spell I think that there’s—it isn’t a this individual named being Cronin cast, say a spell so wouldn’t cast. part of the conspiracy. If an- up caught think she’s what has is, I swer don’t person part see that as dynamic. been this And she’s of the conspiracy— with friendly people. these you. THE WITNESS: Thank Q. Well, why turn back would she her just say JUDGE SPRAGUE: —then on super-duper Maureen and so. was, quote Susan Weber because (Continuing) Ingrid don’t see Cro- your testimony, a wonderful sales- part nin conspiracy.52 of this woman? (N.T. 3004-05). put a asking A. You’re me to motive to On Rebecca (employed Sammon doing. I can’t what this woman is Representatives House of of the Common- testify. do I—I that. heard Pennsylvania):
wealth going on in her don’t know what’s BY [Reading MR. PUSKAS: from Re- life. I don’t know who she’s friend- spondent’s testimony]: ly earlier now. any- saying part conspiracy, tes- wasn’t she lied Thus Cronin that, truthfully, though tified even other unrevealed reason. how—for some *122 Well, Lokuta, put problems. if can’t And I think that she’s eas- Sammon, 2977-80). why ily swayed.
a motive to Rebecca you linking are to a conspiracy cross-examination, Respondent On ar- against you? question counsel on the gued with I think that’s an unfair characteriza- president judge the had control whether a Judge Sprague tion. asked me hiring firing the assistant dis- over try if I question, could to show attorneys trict until the Court asked: conspiracy where this was. And question, The JUDGE SPRAGUE: said that she would file—fall under Lokuta, you agree is whether the heading being friendly with people Mr. that ap- with Puskas the Susan Weber. pointed attorney’s to the office district re- JUDGE SPRAGUE: I think pleasure do not serve at the of the was, recall, being as I sponse without president judge. back, read that the she was under correct, THE That WITNESS: is influence. not. do So, is, question I think the in view all JUDGE SPRAGUE: That’s he you gave, why of the last answer that (N.T. 3002). you. asked you say she testified as she as under influence. When I hear inquired: Counsel then question your previous an- BY MR. PUSKAS: swers, you’re you can’t ac- saying Attorney if Q. So Assistant District count, you why don’t know she would nothing has Nancy job Violi’s do have so testified. serving pleasure with Well, Honor, THE WITNESS: Your president judge, how does she fit might might be—it be it’s conspiracy against you, Judge a into limited to might Susan Weber. Lokuta? caught that she’s under the influence Well, Nancy have Violi does cer- JCB. sorry. that. I’m tain —strike heai’d her response We where an district you’re When assistant actually Pus- uses the words Mr. attorney, your presi- rapport with her, kas told that she going wasn’t dent can if are judge determine bridges. bum the she’s— Maybe assigned to be certain courts me, JUDGE SPRAGUE: Excuse a routine So there is an on basis. that, Judge. you suggesting by Are input through president there that, view, in your the Judicial Con- judge. in her put duct Board words mouth ingratiate So would want testify against you, words that if, yourself judge president with the had not said her own? witness instance, you for have treat- wanted to THE I’m suggesting WITNESS: No. court, ment new court which Ms. is young Rebecca Sammon are suf- developed individuals who might impressionable woman who fering drug with addiction. hearing internalized have those words as adopted them her own. president judge So does have And I believe that an input. I think that Rebecca—and believe some attorney, you would that she had assistant district prob- I testified some presi- yourself to endear lems. She does have some emotional want H23 ability dent of the Eleventh Judicial an that’s believable. have District. unbelievable. you’re saying Nancy So that ADA I have not been able to use that trying
Violi was ingratiate herself every time, because each *123 president judge? with the thwarted, by president been first A. Yes. And I believe that’s she judge, president judge, the first
went to him and complained to me. by Judge now Conahan. Attorney
And he told go Violi to to I am not treated like other complaint and file a give or judge in that county, whether it’s be- statement. cause just these administrative orders And it’s not Violi. It’s Smacchi. have to keep being hammered at me. You saw the same name on one of the There is no interaction me. My with exhibits this afternoon. She’s married just go calls unreceived. (N.T. 3002-04). Attorney to Smacchi. It has not been because of not Explaining why conspiracy how and this trying. I keep reaching out. can’t was initiated and gathered how it in all accept have them hold and me. I’ve people, Respondent those testified: tried. no control over how But, Judge Lokuta, you ac- people these treat me. I have tried knowledge just we’re not talking try over and to in over treat them a president judges. about two We’re deferential fashion. have not been talking about other court depart- kind, met kind —or in excuse me. ments and the working individuals (N.T. 40). 3038— and, in departments, fact, those Respondent has testified that she was your even staff? own by never “well-received” elite” “power Yes, we are. But I believe judge,” because she is a “maverick theory. trickle-down If respect because she an “independent judge.” is does not come from your colleagues, that, She has testified because she wasn’t everyone okay else thinks that it’s received, a “conspiracy” well was con- not respect. to show organized impe- ceived and with the main And there is this free-for-all mental- Conahan, coming tus from who so ity now, has engendered which been witnesses, intimidated the 30 Board because that if margin- know gave testimony. Respon- one and all false Lokuta, Arm okay. alize it’s If Ann testimony proffered justify dent’s her asked, file, Lokuta where is a explanation perjury of the mass sees don’t have to call her back. If Mr. occurring, here is so fanciful and convolut- Sharkey gets repeat letter after letter weight ed that carries no whatsoever. inquiry, inquiry inquiry, after of a le- Including Respondent’s testimony, this nature, gitimate okay it’s with, presented Court has not been nor thumb respond nose and not of, has it otherwise become aware a shred Lokuta, Ann because Ann Lokuta is collusion, conspiracy, of evidence powerless. like. And I think the perception. this is Eye The Doctor not that I attempted have not Some of the Board’s reach out to these I am tell- witnesses people. ing you, day got Respondent from the testified that when one moods, elected, only energy had an that was un- of her bad not did she raise voice, staring, a lot of a lot of blink- only publicly did she berate There’s her movement and occupied ing, a lot of forehead whoever it was who then a clear attention, just staring try to form grimace, but she would scowl or explain Respondent image. at them. To glare doctor, Barna, in an Nicholas
brought eye MR. the record SINATRA: Would M.D., these facial ex- who testified that, doctor that as he did as the show pressions being which were described were his face made a squinted, stared and 1121). (N.T. being caused cataracts. grimacing kind of a smile. related
He his observations 1125).53 “chart” in his reading while she was causing If indeed eye problems were spring office of 2005: *124 squint, to frown and Respondent grimace, ... grimacing. A. She was She was testified, glare grimacing, as Dr. Barna the leaning in staring, kind of forward frowning glaring and the squinting, the the always joke the chair which I day the occurring irrespective be would because patients cheating that’s kind irrespective and of what of the week actually to the you’re getting closer This, however, in. of a mood she was try chart in to it. order to see in the apparent not the case. This became going through And these she was Cusick, a court clerk. testimony of Maura squinting facial machinations compared working had Re- Ms. Cusick and, know, frowning grimacing courtroom to the movie the spondent’s try and so forth in order to to read of Oz. “You knew whether Wizard never the chart She—I could tell better. good judge to or you’re going get seeing wasn’t upset she was she get judge.” you’re going to wicked thought like she she should. (N.T. 1149). At the conclusion of Ms. Cu- 1124). examination, which had imme- sick’s direct testimony, the diately followed Dr. Barna’s then asked the doctor: Counsel asked her: Court a mimic you be a little bit of Can ques- a I have JUDGE SPRAGUE: and show the Court what saw as the judge You referred to the tion. examining her and when were judge. judge and wicked good to and as began grimace say— Correct, A.
A. Sure. just I’m in- JUDGE SPRAGUE: terested, judge when the squint and frown? began —she there facial ex- judge, wicked is, you know—What squinting The that time that were dif- pressions at you squint you cre-
happens when is facial ex- the same as the ferent or pinhole you’re— ate a so that effect good she was pressions when actually helps eye get some judge? rays back to the retinа light Very line fashion to different. straight in a more help eye to focus. And could SPRAGUE: JUDGE mean? What would tell us what cataracts or other re- Patients with when the expressions facial squint. be the oftentimes will fractive errors surgery uncomplicated surgery. had ract She that he did “cataract 53. Dr. Barna testified result,” a very good "She had little had a surgery” April 2005 and (N.T. 1132-33). edge glare.” ... respect her cata- bit of did well with that: "She H25 30(B)(2)(c) pursuant to Rule good response be the judge, what would let- response any subsequent the bad—the expressions facial written Board, by the judge? requesting wicked ter information the Board shall: Well, on the in the coming bench (1) a day, complaint upon find- good if this dismiss morning, say all, existing probable is no good morning ing she’d how that there morning, everyone please charges; is this be cause to file formal seated. The wicked (2) with the is- complaint dismiss the just come on the and court is bench upon a of a letter of counsel suance start, begin, session let’s that, alleged if the determination even very, very, begin, right, let’s all call occurred, it not conduct conduct case. first charges requires that formal be which Well, JUDGE SPRAGUE: those are filed, that the Judicial Offi- provided words, but what the facial ex- about cer:
pression? (a) writing; consents Stern, you like, oh looking (b) the letter of stipulates day. boy, bad *125 may during pro- counsel be used JUDGE SPRAGUE: And the ceedings involving complaints new good judge what the facial ex- Officer; against the Judicial pression be? (c) agrees any con- to and satisfies very smiling. A. Come out happy, Board; required by the or ditions (N.T. 1164-65). (3) filing the of authorize formal testimony In our thoroughly view the of charges with Court Judicial attempt Respondent’s discredits to show Discipline.
that
these “facial machinations”
in-
wei’e
(B)
complaint
If the Board dismisses a
voluntary;
contrary
and establishes on the
investigation,
a full
following
Chief
that the grimacing,
frowning,
glar-
the
the
notify
promptly
Counsel shall
the Judi-
etc.,
ing,
additional,
but
accompany-
complainant.
cial Officer
the
ing
anger,
impa-
manifestations
(C) Exceptions.
discourtesy.
tience and
(1)
a
may
The Board
continue
full
investigation
beyond
of a matter
the
RAISED BY RE-
LEGAL ISSUES
L.
180-day period
paragraph
set forth
SPONDENT
(A) upon
good
a
faith belief that fur-
1. Judicial Conduct Board Rule 31
investigation
necessary.
ther
is
to
(2)
moved
dismiss the Com
may
disposition
The Board
defer
plaint
the
alleging
Board violated its Rule
complaint pursuant
paragraph
of a
31)
(J.C.B.R.P.
opin
(A)
81
No.
and cites our
discovery
receipt
or
of addi-
upon
(Pa.Ct.
DeLeon,
ion in In re
RULE (3) receipt The of the Judicial Offi- PLAINT. response Rule cer’s written 30(B) supplemental or or (A)Except provided paragraph notice inves- (C), days necessary prerequi- tigatory 180 of the Board’s re- letter is within tolling the and calculation of ceipt of the Judicial Officer’s written site to 1126 also, Cicchetti, See, 180-day In period para-
the set forth in A.2d at 816-17. re (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1997), (A). 297, Thus, A.2d 180-day time 697 308-09 graph 'd, 560 Pa. 431 wholly A.2d period inapplicable is if the aff (2000). Thus, our the Board’s review Judicial Officer fails file written its compliance non-compliance response investigation will —or —with authority. proceeds upon Rule 31 solid continue conclusion. DeLeon, point We out that the DeLeon case In supra, In re stated: we case; no to this we hold bears resemblance rule-making power The Board’s derives 31; comply that the Board did with Rule directly from the Constitution: deny and we will the motion. pro- The Board shall ... establish and In DeLeon we stated that our examina- its mulgate procedure. own rules of question compliance tion of the with 18(a)(6). Const., V, § It pur- Pa. Art. is Rule 31 would be focused whether authority suant to this constitutional investiga- not the Board had conducted its promul- Board established and diligence. tion We said: with gated Rule its given It is a intention Rule In similar fashion this Court its receives its require is to Board conduct power rule-making from the Constitu- expedition, that investigations some tion: along leaving it not all the dawdle while adopt govern The court shall rules judicial investigation officer under proceedings conduct of before facing he wonder will formal whether court. It that this re- charges or not. follows 18(b)(4). Const., V, § pur- Pa. Art. met, quirement goal cannot be nor this *126 authority this constitutional suant to achieved, re- -without the concomitant 411(D)(3). adopted that this Court Rule quirement that the proceed Board with provides: That rule investigations. diligence conducting its (D) may The Judicial Officer chal- at In re DeLeon 1031. the of on lenge validity charges the admitted In the DeLeon case the Board any legal including: ground diligence not act in its that it investigation and admitted had vio- ^ Í # the lated Rule 31. We there noted that (3) pro- that the Board violated the upon and Board’s concession was “based it. ceedings governing to, that, of limited the facts this case” and 411(D)(3). C.J.D.R.P. No. likewise, was so and so our decision based Id. case, at 1028-29. limited. In the DeLeon it was obvi- dili- ous that the Board did not act with 481, In re 546 Pa. 686 Hasay, In case, it is obvious that it did. gence; this (1996), af Supreme A.2d 809 the Court In we the Board’s holding firmed our that the Court of Judi DeLeon noted a period of investigation cial to what extended over Discipline contrary 2½ — that, except years54 and for one interview asserting the consti Board was —did Respondent’s deposi August the Board’s 2004 and authority tutional review 2005, the Board did noth tion in October compliance proce with its rules own 493-95, years. pointed 1½ ing period for a We Hasay, supra, dure. In re at 686 run) is, 180-day begins receipt Respondent’s clock to authoriza- from 54. That (when filing Complaint in this Court. Investigation of a response the Notice of tion
1127 Respondent’s delay only lengthy not came into the record over out was on “the statute of limita- unexplained. objections but based 56 tions.” total time from this case the In receipt Respondent’s the Board’s re of this discussion we At the outset sponse Investigation “statutory to the Notice of limitations make it clear that filing directly the authorization of the of the Com to disci periods applied are 2006) Cicchetti, plaint (May 2005 to 17 plinary October In re 697 proceedings.” However, (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1997), years. citing months—less than A.2d 297 Wil 1½ (October Case, 416, 420-21, six months of that time 2005 to 269 Pa. 112 A. helm’s 2006) (1921). See, also, April spent get in an effort to Bar v. The Florida (Fla.1978) McCain, agree psychiatric So.2d 700 psychological examinations.55 This six- cases cited therein. There is no statute “delay” month can in no way be attributed places limits on the time within which diligence by Board—quite to lack of brought must be in this charges which opposite; by see this effort we Court. designed Board as for the benefit of the however, are, There two time related Respondent—an benign effort to find a constraints on the Board what evidence explanation for the behavior which was may present in this Court. being reported to it. placed One the Board constraint Another three months to the was added upon itself in its Rule of Procedure 15. investigation of Respondent’s because re- concept The other is the of fundamental giving deposition. sistance to The Board which, Cicchetti, 306, In re fairness required subpoena to serve her awith guided. said it this Court would be 17, May on responded 2006 to which she by filing a Quash Subpoena. Motion to We will discuss Rule 15 first.
After the Quash Motion to was denied on provides: 17, 2006, August finally deposition took RULE 15. TIME LIMITATIONS place August determines Except where the Board The facts establish that the Board con- cause, good the Board otherwise *127 investigation diligence. ducted this with complaints arising not consider shall DeLeon no application has here. The occurring more from acts or omissions compliance Board has acted in its with years prior than four to the date of the Rule 31 and the Motion to Dismiss for however, provided, complaint, non-compliance with that Rule is denied. episode alleged pattern the last of an of recurring judicial misconduct arises 2. “Statute of Limitations” four-year period, the the Board within all acts or omissions testimony may prior Some of the in this case re- consider alleged pattern an of alleged lates to are to have related to such events which taken as conduct. place long ago as the 1990s. objection Initially sought Respon- Respondent repeatedly made this
55. the Board to have 56. choice; testimony occurring only even of events by practitioners dent examined of its a time the trial. We will address short before agreed eventually declined and objections legitimacy of all of these the by psychiatrist psycholo- be examined consequent propriety the admission of of gist of her choice. testimony. this 1128
Preliminarily, ap- by we mention that filed by individuals or initiated pears that Respondent misconstrues Rule board....
15. investigation, In the course of its pointed As out in Zupsic, we In re 893 Board interviewed dozens of individuals (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005): A.2d 875 involving who described numerous events types by Respon- various of misconduct Rule 15 lapse does not address the of occurring dent frequency every time between occurrence of acts or year commencing in the 1990s. In this judicial of a omissions officer and the proviso circumstance refer to of Court, we filing Complaint in this but Rule 15 rather, which states: the time which be- intervenes tween the occurrence of the acts or however, provided, ... that when the omissions and the of receipt the com- episode last of an alleged pattern of plaint by the Judicial Conduct Board. recurring judicial misconduct arises This is clear. “complaint” The word four-year period, within the the Board appears frequently in the Judicial Con- may prior consider all acts or omissions Procedure, duct Board’s Rules of alleged pattern related to such an question review of these Rules no leaves conduct. that in every instance the reference is to Cicchetti, In supra, In re said: we a “complaint” by filed a “complainant” Since the enactment of the Rights Civil See, 10, 11,
with the Board. e.g. Rules Act, frequently federal courts have been 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, By 31. whether, upon called to determine under contrast, whenever Rules refer to a Act, § Title 42 VII U.S.C. 2000e- Complaint by filed the Board 6(e), “pattern practice” of discrimi Court the term Complaint” “Board natory conduct existed. The United used, see, 13, Moreover, e.g. Rules 34. Supreme States has held that a Court 1 provides Rule definitions of the two “pattern practice” requires “some terms as follows: thing isolated, sporadic more than an Complaint Board is the document set- incident, routine, repeated, but is or of a ting charges forth the formal and filed generalized nature.” International proceedings the Board to initiate Brotherhood Teamsters v. United Discipline. Court of Judicial States, 324, 16, 431 336 n. 97 U.S. S.Ct.
Complaint setting (1977). means a 16, document 1855 n. L.Ed.2d alleging forth information conduct Id. at 309. jurisdiction of the Judicial within judicial The misconduct in evidence pursuant Conduct Board to Pa. Const. this record is not of “sporad- “isolated” or V, § Art. ic” incidents. The evidence this record *128 Id. at 885. describes misconduct “re- which was peated” and “routine.”
The in record this case establishes that Susan a the Complaint Weber filed If in proviso apply the Rule 15 does not 27, 2004, on April thereupon Board and the case, case, apply any in this it in will investigation. its This the Board initiated nothing for the record in this case contains constitutionally Board is authorized to do. except “pattern recurring evidence of a of 18(a)(7) V, § provides: Pa. Const. Art. much, judicial misconduct.” Since if not most, investigate judicial
The and of the misconduct in board shall receive complaints regarding judicial years conduct record occurred within the four be-
1129 being any fore ini- in a to complaint pattern Susan Weber’s and the linked common by respondent. tiation of the conduct investigation April Board’s in other 2004,57 certainly did; episode” the “last Cicchetti, 297, (Pa.Ct. A.2d 309 In re 697 and, thus, rule, under the the Board was Jud.Disc.1997). prior authorized to “consider all acts us, opposite In case before is omissions related such alleged pat- an true; and held in this we have case And, so, tern of conduct.” the Board did by the Board has established clear and prior consider acts and of omissions Re- convincing pattern of recurring evidence a spondent offer them in evidence. judicial misconduct, rendering admissible evidence This was not excluded occurring evidence of conduct more than “four-year rule” of Rule 15 prop- and was four it was years reported before erly admitted under the specific authority Board. of a “pattern judi- the rule as of recurring concept We hold that no of fair cial misconduct.” operate ness shall to exclude evidence of Cicchetti, In In supra, re we held that “repeated” and “routine” misconduct which the concept of fundamental fairness mili is part “pattern established of of against tated our in consideration that case recurring judicial misconduct” under Judi of two incidents of alleged sexual harass cial Rule If it fair Conduct Board 15. is 20, ment —one occurring and the other 13 15, admit it fair under Rule to admit years, any before complaint made. it. The facts in the Cicchetti case which dictated our in decision that case are not 3. Laches case, present in this case, and in that there asserted the affirmative de- “pattern
was no judicial of recurring mis- in fense laches her Omnibus Motion and conduct.” Supreme Trial Memorandum.58 Our Court Cicchetti, In supra, the witnesses, Debra provided guidance regard has much Hay Mary Hostert, Beth de- each scope the breadth and of the equitable single Respon- scribed encounter with recently, doctrine of laches. Most brief, private, dent —which was sexual in Examiners, Weinberg v. State Board of eight years nature removed in time 143, 148, 239, (1985), 509 A.2d 242 Pa. 501 Moreover, one from the other. there was Court, Supreme from unan- quoting its only one other incident of a similar nature imous decision Class Two Hundred involving Respondent established to have Faculty Colleges Admin. Members State occurred year period. over the 20 Scanlon, We 275, Commonwealth v. Pa.
held that: 103, (1983), 466 A.2d stated: allegations by Hay equitable
The application Hostert are “The doc- time, thus too remote in and too brief in trine of laches not depend upon does occurrence, to possibility sustain elapsed fact that a definite time has judicial premature 57. A not inconsiderable amount of It was raise defense in misconduct occurred even after that date. Motion and in a Omnibus Memorandum See, Coll; e.g., N.T. 573-76 N.T. 713-22 Sal- filed before trial because there were no facts lemi; Stankus; 1194-96, N.T. 966-68 N.T. in the record to establish the essential ele- *129 Moran; defense, Moyer; diligence 1200-03 N.T. 1364-73 N.T. viz. lack of ments Conahan; 21; causing causing delay prejudice turn 3309-31 Board Exhibit No. undue in 22; Respondent. Board Exhibit No. Board Exhibit Nо. 23. to the
1130 Furthermore, accrued, of is an
since the cause of action
but
the defense
laches
whether,
the
under the circumstances of the
affirmative defense and
of
burden
case,
is, therefore,
the
complaining party
proving
the
is
laches
de-
particular
See,
fendant/respondent.
e.g.,
in
guilty
failing
of want of due
Jackson
diligence
Commission,
to institute his action to
v. State Real Estate
72
preju
another’s
Ent.,
539,
(1983);
King
v.
Pa.Cmwlth.
Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence § is, therefore, this Court’s re (5th ed.1941). Moreover, at 177 “[t]he sponsibility examine the record order and is question of laches is factual deter- if prove: to determine there evidence to by examining mined circumstances “the Thomas, complaining party 1. [was] of each case.” Leedom v. su- failing 200-201, guilty diligence of want of due Pa. at at pra, 473 373 A.2d action,” 1332, institute his cases cited therein. prejudiced 2. Weinberg Supreme
In
Court went on
thereby.
supra.
Weinberg,
to point out:
argued
by
equitable
showing
attempts
ap-
de-
a defendant who
It has been
that the
against
against
ply
Commonwealth
is not available
the doctrine
fense
laches
against
argument
Weinberg,
an
has
re-
than ...
individual."
Commonwealth. This
been
Thus,
Supreme
held
H31
in
Initially,
persuaded
applying
we note that there is no We are
that the
in
equitable
evidence
Judicial Conduct Board
doctrine of laches
a disci-
guilty
diligence
of lack of
requirement
was
or caused
of
plinary proceeding,
any
delay in
delay
by proving
undue
the case. The evidence
may
undue
be fulfilled
opposite:
establishes the
the Board re
unjustifiably delayed
that a
in
victim
April
Susan
complaint
ceived
Weber’s
reporting an incident to the Board.
(N.T.
27,
Weber)
pro
2004
1471-72
241,
which
it was because the Board
reporters,
an
in
testified about
occasion
party
was the
which had “instituted [its]
having
“the
dif-
mid-1990s” when she was
action,” our inquiry
diligence
on due
or
ficulty keeping up
Respondent
who
delay
go
undue
need
no further.
fast,”
that,
speaking “way
too
However,
Lyness
v. Commonwealth
“please
when she asked
Medicine,
State Board
127 Pa.Cmwlth.
of
down,” Respondent spoke
slow
faster.
even
225,
(1989),
... requisite whether the lack of due question failure to do so raises the diligence must be attributable to the in fact took rapes whether the and assaults may Board whether be attributable See, Lane, v. place. Commonwealth party to a is a mat- (1989) non-Commonwealth 390, 398, Pa. 555 A.2d impression ter of first in this Common- Supreme Pennsylvania Court of where wealth. involving charge rape in a case assault, that: And held indecent held:
1132
The
prompt
lack of a
complaint by a
it
casion[s] where would have been natural
crime,
although
victim of
not disposi-
to
spoken.”
expect
have
We
not
would
case,
of
may justi-
tive
the merits of the
complain
Toole to
of his dissatisfac-
fiably produce a doubt as to whether the
tion
Respondent’s industry
with
to the Ju-
occurred,
offense indeed
it
whether
dicial
Board.
expect
Conduct
We would
was a recent fabrication by the com-
it;
that he
complain
would
to her about
plaining witness.
which is
did.
what he
We would not ex-
pect Lisa Tratthen to run
the Judicial
to
long
recognized
has
been
report
Conduct Board to
the occasion
victim of a
naturally
crime
ex-
be
Respondent spoke
being
where
faster after
pected
complain
to
of the offense at the
asked
please
slow
It is not the
down.
See,
opportunity.
first
safe
Common-
individual incidents60 which constitute the
Dillon,
351,
v.
360,
wealth
592 Pa.
925 A.2d
case;
violations in
it
this
is the accumula-
131,
(2007);
Snoke,
137
Commonwealth v.
tion of incidents which does so.
(1990);
Pa.
525
Prompt public authority complainants Ly- individual to be in required prosecution ness, not in a under this which accounted for court’s deci- Provided, chapter: however, that noth- sion in that case. ing this section shall be construed to Next, we must examine the record prohibit introducing a defendant from Respondent to see if placed. has evidence evidence of the complainant’s failure to therein which establishes that she was promptly report if the crime such evi- prejudiced by any delay.61 undue Such dence would be admissible pursuant examination reveals that there is no evi the rules of evidence. dence this record that Respondent was Dillon, In supra, Pennsylvania Su- prejudiced by any delay. undue
preme Court stated: by The only prejudice reference to made ... concerning evidence the timeliness this came in her direct testi- complaint of a is contemplated by both mony when she was asked: (Section statute 3105 of the Crimes Lokuta, Code) can tell principle recognizing how, all, you if at have been Court may that a witness if impeached he prejudiced delay bringing in the of or she remained silent on an occasion 2891). proceedings? these where would have been natural spoken. In response, Respondent named three whom, said, regard individuals, We do not such as related events two had by Judge (George Raymond Toole and Lisa Tratthen as “oc- died Gushanas and I. as, apply. Respondent In contrast to the individual incidents much for laches to Lyness. Nevertheless, must establish both. we will do point propitious so for we believe it is out already 61. Since we have held that there was conspicuous absence in this record of delay, really necessary no undue it is prejudice Respondent. evidence question prejudice, us to address the inas- Kremer) (Louise Bednarski) Judges, and one Pennsylvania “was State Trial Iwho cognitive advice, unable to have powers,” upon including who relied for ethical *132 [presumably] would have testified in her personal using my I could *133 refute, any or nesses—or witness—would lawyers call “who can address the other contradict, way in the evi- any address as: lawyers same.” These were identified Board, testi- presented by the the dence Giovannini, Polishan, Joseph Timothy fact, mony have been admitted. In Ross, Cheryl Sobeski-Reedy and Charles (N.T. did 1690-91). present witnesses whose Jerry Cohen. pre- the evidence testimony did address admissibility ruling The Court’s on the testimony is by the Board that sented testimony of this was: of part this record. Let me make it JUDGE SPRAGUE: clear, Counsel, can gov- so that we ruling that the of the Court was We find accordingly. erned it. correct and affirm we any
The has ruled62 that wit- Court that desire to call that deal nesses OF III. CONCLUSIONS LAW specific (cid:127)with the incidents or matters brought that had been and testified Respondent’s 1. set out The conduct by Board, you any the are free to call Findings of Fact Nos. 8-18 is: and all witnesses desire on those (a) 3A.(3) the a of violation of Canon matters. Conduct, and Code of Judicial just any call witnesses (b) brings judicial such that the office Lokuta, in general deal disrepute, a violation of Article into specifically which does not deal with 18(d)(1) V, Pennsylvania § of the brought the forth incident or events Constitution. Board, inadmissible. the will be (N.T. 1690). out Respondent’s 2. The conduct set The Court further ruled: is: Findings of Fact Nos. 15-32 let also SPRAGUE: And me JUDGE 3A.(3) (a) of the a of Canon violation clear, Counsel, the ruling the of make Conduct, Code of Judicial Court, said, preclude Ias does not (b) brings judicial office such witnesses, including calling any a of Article disrepute, into violation witnesses, if are to those 18(d)(1) V, Pennsylvania of § reputation and char-
testify good Constitution, 1691).63 acter traits. (c) ad- proper prejudices such proffered testimony This is irrelevant. justice, a violation has ministration of question: a the Board This close named Respondent never call these counsel how it 63. The Court had advised 62. question testify. raised would rule on the when was witness —to so witnesses —or pre-trial at the conference. 18(d)(1) V, § Pennsyl- Respondent’s Article of the The conduct out in 7. set Constitution, vania Findings of Fact Nos. 70-73 is: (d) 3B.(1) a violation of Canon of the (a) brings judicial such that office
Code Judicial Conduct. into a Article disrepute, violation of 18(d)(1) Y, § Pennsylvania of the Respondent’s The conduct set out Constitution. Findings of Fact Nos. 34-36 is:
(a) 3A.(3) a violation of Canon of the Respondent’s 8. The conduct set out Conduct,
Code of Judicial Findings of Fact Nos. 75-85 is: (b) such that brings judicial office (a) 3C.(l)(a) of the violation Canon into disrepute, a of Article violation Conduct, of Judicial Code 18(d)(1) V, § Pennsylvania (b) judicial such that brings office Constitution, disrepute, into of Article violation (c) such that prejudices proper ad- 18(d)(1) V, § Pennsylvania of the justice, ministration of a violation of Constitution, 18(d)(1) V, § Pennsyl- Article *134 (c) prejudices such that proper the ad- Constitution, vania and justice, ministration of a violation of (d) 3B.(1) a violation of of Canon the 18(d)(1) V, § Pennsyl- Article of the of Judicial Code Conduct. Constitution, vania and 4. The Respondent’s conduct out in set (d) a violation of Canon 2A. of the Code Finding of Fact No. 38 is: of Judicial Conduct. (a) brings such that judicial the office 9. Respondent’s The conduct set out in into disrepute, a violation of Article Findings of Fact Nos. 86-90 is: V, 18(d)(1) § of the Pennsylvania (a) 3C.(l)(a) a violation of of Canon the Constitution, and Conduct, of Judicial Code
(b) 3B.(1) a violation of Canon of the (b) such that brings judicial of the office Code Judicial Conduct. disrepute, into a violation of Article 5. The Respondent’s conduct set out 18(d)(1) V, § Pennsylvania of the Findings of Fact Nos. 40-64 is: Constitution, (a) 3A.(3) a violation of Canon of the (c) prejudices proper such that ad- Conduct, Code of Judicial and justice, ministration of a violation of (b) such that brings judicial office 18(d)(1) V, § Article Pennsyl- of the disrepute, into a violation of Article Constitution, vania 18(d)(1) V, § Pennsylvania of the (d) a violation of 2A. of Canon the Code Constitution. of Judicial Conduct.
6. The Respondent’s conduct out in set Findings of Fact 10. The Nos. 65-68 is: Judicial Conduct Board acted in compliance with its Rule 31.
(a) A.(5) a violation of 3 Canon of the Conduct, Code of Judicial 11. The Judicial Conduct Board acted (b) prejudices such that proper ad- in compliance with its Rule 15 and the justice, ministration of of violation notion of fundamental fairness discussed 18(d)(1) V, § Pennsyl- Article of the Cicchetti, by this in In re A.2d Court 697 Constitution, vania (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1997) 297 not does exclude (c) 3B.(1) a violation of of the of the by Canon evidence introduced the Ju
Code of Judicial dicial Conduct. Conduct Board this case. Respondent Respondent
12. has failed to establish ther ORDERED that said is prohibited holding any judi- the affirmative defense of laches is hereafter from applicable in this cial office in the case because she did not Commonwealth. diligence
establish lack of caused undue delay CONCURRING AND DISSENTING prejudice which turn caused to the BY Respondent. STATEMENT STREIB.
13. The offer Respondent’s join majority to intro- While in the of the testimony duce the lawyers Opinion, several that Court’s I dissent from Sections I. courtesy pro- Majority acted and J. of the Opinion. did not fessionalism on certain occasions find the witness Theodore Krohn to be (While courtroom, judges may were did credible. but which fellow in any way proceed- not relate to the conduct read the of these transcript which charges ings, present during was the basis of the made most Judicial Board or hearing Conduct which was observe the witness or his testi- subject testimony presented by mony. judges of the of the three Two who were Board, properly irrelevant and present found the witness to lack credibili- issues.) ty excluded. on these It is for the lack two credibility that I dissent on both issues. forth in For reasons set Con- 1-9, Respondent clusions of Nos. THE VI However, I., Law regarding Seсtion CASE, V, subject discipline under Article OLET O’BRIEN finding on the 18(d)(1) § Pennsylvania 2, Constitu- violation Counts even if the tion. by Judge allegedly statement made Loku-
ta to the effect that the clerk law was to LAMB, MUSMANNO, BUCCI, asshole,” him referring “cut a new to a KURTZ, J.J., join. party’s attorney proven, the state off-hand, ment is no more than an albeit STREIB, JJ., join O’TOOLE the and unprofessional, comment made privately in Majority Opinion respects except all a member of her staff in a moment of Judges to Sections I. and J. O’TOOLE and anger. This statement alone does not STREIB dissent from the conclusions of prove by convincing clear and evidence Majority the to those Opinion as Sections prejudice Lokuta held a bias or Concurring Dissenting and file a and prevent fairly adju which would her from Statement. dicating the case. JUDGE, J., in participate did not the human, Judges are human emo- disposition of of this consideration case. tions, may and make amongst comments lawyers or their about themselves staff
ORDER
fairly de-
litigants
and
while nevertheless
NOW,
December,
day
ciding
Majority Opinion impos-
AND
this 9th
of
cases. The
upon judges
Respondent,
it is ORDERED that
es an unreasonable standard
Lokuta,
hereby
private
Ann
in their
communications
each
H.
is
removed from
with
personal
11th
and their
staff.
It is not
her office as
Judicial
other
District,
disciplinary
of
Pleas of Lu-
the stuff that either recusal or
Court
Common
fur-
are made of.1
County, Pennsylvania,
zerne
and
is
actions
1981)
Majority Opinion,
support
in
of the conclusion that Canon
1. The case cited
the
3C.(l)(a)
Hayslip Douglas,
(Fla.App.
applicable
is
to this case is not anal-
v.
H37 CASE, J., THE BONNER As to Majority Opinion. Section I. and J. of even if alleged by the statement prove by wit- find that the Board not clear ness to the effect of Respondent want- convincing pattern a of evidence be- ing to family rule favor of an influential havior. true,
in the area were the Board did not It is for these reasons alone that I dis- charge a violation Opinion. sent from the Court’s Code Judicial Conduct its Com- plaint, but raised the matter for the first O’TOOLE, J., joins Concurring this I, therefore, time at trial. find the Board’s Statement. Dissenting assertion to untimely improper.
Indeed, the Board itself offered this evi- count,
dence as a specific but rather pattern show a of behavior. At the conclu- evidence, sion of all the sup- Board’s posed found, pattern best, was allegedly at
in the two incidents described in Sections ogous degree instant hearing impossible. factual situation. That that a fair case public involved a public outburst in the court- There was no such statement con- Therefore, room in front a party clearly which indi- duct in this case. do not believe 3C.(l)(a) however, cated party present to the all applicable, Canon courtroom, was, minimum, that there an factual Hayslip. situation similar to the one in appearance might which lead a Majority reasonable I concur with the rationale
person to think there Opinion. was a bias such notes had a of- we our directive that — leading to an incident. fice from Lokuta that we were to not rise she came into Quite frankly, Judge Lokuta is— the courtroom. That we were speaks fast, way too I and so stay seated our seats and take stopped her and asked her slow saying whatever she started down down. the minute she came out of her How did ask her to slow down? chambers. I just simply you please said could Stayed So I into went court. seated down, know, slow at one in- though everybody even rose and start- stance. There another one writing ed the minute she came out of know, day said, I where could her chambers. got And when she you repeat something that she writing, bench and realized I was might reading, have been and then I was told this isn’t record proceeded to speak even faster why you standing, aren’t something point to the where I time already that effect. So she had taken finished and was go able to down- seat, my her stayed so seat at stairs, boss, went closed (N.T. 752-61). that point. door, broke into tears Wasiluk, Ruth chief reporter, court tes- quite said, frankly know— tified: MR. object SINATRA: I’m
Notes
how write notes behalf; and of testimony the loss whose a stationery postage stamps, own and and prejudice [presumably], caused her to variety questions up, of that come would (N.T. 2891-92). evidence, 2891). There is no (N.T. how- Respon- he in died 1999.” ever, presumptive that the of loss this Judge dent had also mentioned Kremer testimony Respondent prejudice. caused spoken earlier and testified that she had telephone with him on the and met with (who 2005), in says, Gushanas died she him once her regarding “jurisdictional tasks,” ... “helped “assisted household rights” variety questions.” and of “a ethical change some locks at house” and “did [her] (N.T. 2318). spoke She also said to the household chores me.” with Judge about Kremer “interference with (who 2891); incompe- Bednarski became docket,” president and about “the [her] date), tent at Respondent some unknown judge telling me I to his would have take says, helped “lived next door me and me what,” call no matter presi- about the 2891). (N.T, throughout years.” out all the judge requiring give dent her him “to There is no that inability evidence the of why recusing myself.” reasons was testify prejudicial these witnesses to (N.T. 2321-22). According Respondent, Respondent. There is no of evidence then, only thing Judge the Kremer could they what would have testified about. We have testified about what he told her can speculate called, that if these wit- two he had conversations with which whether, nesses would asked at testimony would nothing, have added they helping times were with household quite Respon- this Court is familiar with locks, or changing chores [perhaps] or many grievances, including dent’s those other they times “watching” she mentioned she had with discussed were], Respondent’s they they home [if Judge Moreover, Judge Kremer. Kremer clerk, not Respondent’s see law Judith died in investigation didn’t Flaherty, performing numerous personal is, thus, start until 2004. that it obvious Respondent tasks for both inside and out- diligence part was no lack on of county side the on house time. But there delay Board which caused undue which is no evidence in this record that this is allowed Kremer to die before this they would have been asked and this trial commenced. is how have testified. In would event, the of such testimony absence from Respondent find that not We has carried speculated prejudice record does not establishing her burden of the affirmative Respondent because it in way no contra- certainly of not defense laches and has true, Flaherty dicts if it were which —even “stronger showing” required made be, willing speculate we are it would nor against when the defense is asserted credibility diminish her in the Commonwealth. slightest. other prevent- The witness whose death Respondent’s Proffer Ray- ed from testifying him I. of Respondent mond Kremer the Common Pleas Court advised the of Court County, who, of Philadelphia Respondent her intention to call Coslett as a Charles said, following “was to me made of referred contact witness and offer through proof: the State Trial of Conference MR. SINATRA: Mr. Coslett is never contended day every of long-time, distinguished every member misconduct guilty of County the Luzerne Bar tes- judi- who will has every day hour since she held tify many appearances front cial office. If the evidence is Her Honor. And there his testimony was—from Monday, on that the misbehaved has perspective, she treated him and misbehave Tuesday judge did litigants parties all front of her Respondent’s If offer certainly irrelevant. (N.T. 1689). respect. dignity representation proof had included the testimony these named wit- proposed he Counsel further stated that