Federal judge had sex in chambers with top police officer

A federal judge was disciplined for having sex in her own chambers with a high-ranking law enforcement official within earshot of her staff, attending a partisan political event and lying to top judges investigating the allegations, a disciplinary committee found.

However, the identity of the judge and the district court where he works is kept secret by the court. United States Judicial Council Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability in it Decision published on FridayPreviously reported by Law360 and Reuters.

The seven-judge committee upheld findings of judicial misconduct issued by the Judicial Council in February. 11th CircuitFederal appeals court circuit that hears cases originating in the U.S. District Courts in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

The 11th Circuit imposed sanctions on the admitting judge, including ordering him to write letters of apology to the six former law clerks interviewed in the investigation; continued service as chief judge of the federal district in which they are located; and refrain from serving on any Judicial Conference committee.

A spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declined to comment on the decision approving those sanctions and the decision to keep the judge’s name secret.

In September, 11th Circuit chief judge William Pryor was notified of a complaint filed against the unnamed judge based on a memorandum received by the chief judge in the district, according to the decision.

“The information in the Chief District Judge’s memorandum came from one of the law clerks of that judge,” the decision said.

“The law clerk reported on more than one occasion that the judge in question engaged in sexual activity in the chambers with a uniformed law enforcement officer during working hours, within earshot of the judge’s staff,” the decision states. It was said.

“The law clerk also reported that the judge in question failed to guide law clerks and organize their work, displayed visible anger, including yelling and cursing at law clerks, and once told staff that the judge had ‘drank too many martinis the night before’ at an event for the District Attorney.”

The decision stated that the judge who was the subject of the complaint, after being informed by the chief judge, submitted a response rejecting the allegations and calling them “ugly” and “baseless”.

A special committee was subsequently appointed to investigate the allegations; that committee included interviewing six of the judge’s former clerks and reviewing documents, security footage and visitor logins.

The decision also included “conducting a test in a room with a similar layout to determine whether law clerks sitting outside the areas can hear sounds coming from inside; conducting a forensic test on the seat cushion in the judge’s office in question.”

The decision stated that the special committee published a report in December and found that the judge “committed judicial misconduct by having an extramarital affair with a high-ranking police officer and having sexual intercourse in the judge’s office during working hours.”

The committee also found that the judge engaged in misconduct by attending a campaign event for a district attorney and making false statements to Chief District Judge Pryor and the chief court district judge that were “material to the investigation.”

“In particular, the judge in question denied that he had sexual intercourse in the courthouse and that he knew who the allegation was about,” the decision said.

The committee found that the relationship lasted approximately two years and was conducted with a senior officer in the police department.

The decision stated, “Many times, during working hours, the judge and the police officer in question had sexual intercourse in the judge’s office, within earshot of the judge’s staff.”

According to the decision, “In addition, during the period when the incident was ongoing, the police department was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases filed in the region.”

The judge did not disclose the incident to any other judge, staff or litigant.

“The judge in question could have been assigned to handle a case in which the officer or the police department had an interest, which could have created a conflict or the appearance of a conflict,” the ruling said. The statement was included.

“Although the special committee found no instance of that judge presiding over a case in which the officer or police department was a party or witness, the special committee found that this was due to ‘coincidence’ rather than efforts by that judge to deescalate any potential conflict.”

The decision said the incident made the judge “vulnerable to potential extortion or blackmail”, violated the judicial code of conduct, “displayed a gross lack of judgment” and created a “disturbing and disturbing” environment for his staff.

The decision also stated that the special committee that recommended sanctions against the judge “ultimately decided not to recommend a more severe sanction because: (1) said judge corrected the misrepresentations and subsequently was candid with the special committee; (2) said judge was unlikely to engage in similar misconduct in the future because said judge had terminated his relationship with law enforcement and committed to avoiding partisan political incidents in the future; and (3) said judge had provided exemplary service to the court.”

“The special committee declared that although it was ‘deeply disturbed’ by the conduct of the judge in question, the judge in question ‘demonstrated a strong disposition towards rehabilitation and continued his diligent service to the judiciary,'” the decision said. The statement was included.