Sardino v. State CommissionSardino v. State Commission
OPINION OF THE COURT
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct has determined that petitioner, a Judge of the Syracuse City Court, engaged in various acts of misconduct demonstrating а pattern of injudicious behavior rendering him unfit to remain in judicial office. Pursuant to the State Constitution, petitioner commenced this proceeding tо review the commission’s findings of fact, legal rulings and determination that he be removed from office (NY Const, art VI, § 22, subds a, d; Matter of Kuehnel v State Comm. on Judicial Conduct,
The commissiоn sustained over 20 charges and numerous specifications. The evidence in the record is voluminous and for the purpose of this appeal nеed not be discussed in detail. A summary of the salient points should suffice to illustrate the propriety of the commission’s determination.
Most of the petitionеr’s misconduct occurred in open court during arraignments. The official records of these proceedings show that petitioner consistently failed (in 62 cases) to inform the accused of the right to counsel and failed to conduct even a minimal inquiry to determine whether they were entitled to assignеd counsel. Indeed, even in cases where the accused persons themselves stated that they were unemployed, indigent, or unable to afford аn attorney, petitioner did nothing to assist them in obtaining legal assistance. The petitioner admitted to the commission that he deliberately adopted these practices, and in doing so knowingly disregarded his statutory obligations (CPL 170.10, 180.10) because he considered it “counter productive” to read defendаnts their rights at arraignment.
These court records also demonstrated that the petitioner regularly abused his authority with respect to setting bail. In most of the cases under consideration he arbitrarily required defendants to post bail without inquiry or reference to the statutory standards (CPL 510.30). His conduct and statements аt the time show that he was acting punitively with little or no interest in the only matter of legitimate concern, namely, whether any bail or the amount fixed was necessary to insure the defendant’s future appearances in court (CPL 510.30, subd 2, par [a]). He often ordered defendants to be held without bail for no
The record of the court proceedings also shows that petitioner often assumеd an adversarial role at arraignments by questioning defendants about the crime charged, occasionally eliciting incriminating statements and, in other cases, expressing disbelief when the defendants, their attorneys, or family members, maintained their innocence. On these occasions, in addition to treаting the accusation as proved, the petitioner stated his views in sarcastic terms and displayed his animosity against the accused by resort to namе-calling and dehumanizing remarks. For instance, in open court he commonly referred to those accused as “creatures”, called one defendant a “maniac”, and said that another should be “exterminated”. He informed an attorney representing a defendant charged with traffic violations that it was “[t]oo bad he [the defendant] wasn’t destroyed and the car was still here. That would be beneficial to the community”. In another case he statеd that if he had found his daughter with the defendant “that would be another case of homicide”.
The petitioner concedes that these remarks were “excessive” but denies that he felt any bias against the defendants or that his actions at the arraignments were actually motivated by animosity. He also contends that his fitness as a Judge cannot be determined on the existing record because it does not take into account his performance in the mоre than 5,000 cases at which he presided over the years.
The ability to be impartial is an indispensable requirement for a judicial officer. Equally impоrtant is the requirement that a Judge conduct himself in such a way that the public can perceive and continue to rely upon the impartiality of thosе who have been chosen to pass judg
Although the petitioner may not hаve been guilty of similar misconduct in all or most of the cases at which he presided, consistent disregard of judicial obligations, abuse of judicial powеr and intemperate displays of evident bias in 62 cases over a two-year period can hardly be viewed as an isolated incident. At best, the pеtitioner’s argument that his entire judicial career be considered, would establish that his behavior was erratic, which itself is inconsistent with a Judge’s role.
The pеtitioner also contends that the commission erred in refusing to allow him to present evidence that his practices were consistent with the general practice of other Judges of the City Court system. Although we doubt that many Judges follow the practices of this petitioner we agree with the commission thаt such evidence would be irrelevant.
Each Judge is personally obligated to act in accordance with the law and the standards of judicial cоnduct. If a Judge disregards or fails to meet these obligations the fact that others may be similarly derelict can provide no defense. Indeed one оf the obvious reasons for establishing a permanent Commission on Judicial Conduct is to elevate judicial performance by insuring that the practicеs in the various courts comply with the high standards required of judicial officers.
In sum the evidence in the record amply supports the commission’s determinatiоn that “The totality of [petitioner’s] conduct shows a shocking disregard for due process of law. [He] has grossly abused judicial power and procеss, routinely denied defendants their rights, ignored the mandates of law, disregarded the jurisdiction of other courts, disparaged attorneys, demeaned defendants and otherwise acted in a manner bringing disrepute to the courts and the
Accordingly, the determined sanction of removal should be accepted, without costs.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur in Per Curiam opinion.
Determined sanction accepted, without costs, and J. Richard Sardino removed from the office of Judge of the City Court, City of Syracuse.