Maze v. Judicial Conduct Comm'n

612 S.W.3d 793

Beth Lewis MAZE, Appellant

v.JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION, Appellee

2019-SC-0691-RR

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

DECEMBER 17, 2020

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.

On September 18, 2017, Beth Lewis Maze, then Judge of the 21st Judicial Circuit, 2nd Division,¹ learned her ex-husband had been arrested on several criminal charges including possession of a controlled substance. Judge Maze intervened in the matter by attempting to order drug tests at hospitals in two nearby counties. By letter dated November 17, Judge Maze self-reported to the Judicial Conduct Commission ("Commission"). This letter set off a series of events ultimately leading to Judge Maze being criminally indicted,² and the Commission bringing six counts of judicial misconduct against her. After a prolonged pre-hearing process, including Judge Maze's interlocutory appeal to this Court in an attempt to stay the Commission's hearing pending resolution of her criminal case,³ the Commission held its hearing on October 28-30, 2019, following which the Commission entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order. We quote the following pertinent parts of that Order:

COUNT I

On September 18. 2017, [Judge Maze] learned her ex-husband had been arrested on several criminal charges including possession of a controlled substance. [Judge Maze] immediately made several attempts to contact the Bath County Jailer Earl Willis to obtain information on his arrest. After making contact with Mr. Willis [Judge Maze] contacted pre-trial services in an attempt to secure a pre-trial officer from outside of [Judge Maze's] Judicial Circuit to conduct [her] ex-husband's pre-trial interview. [Judge Maze] then contacted District Judge William Roberts to discuss the matter only to be advised that neither he nor Judge Donald Blair would preside and that the matter would be referred to the Chief Regional Judge for the appointment of a Special Judge.

Jailer Willis then made contact with [Judge Maze] and informed her he was assisting [Judge Maze's] ex-husband in obtaining a drug test from St. Joseph Hospital in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky. Jailer Willis informed [Judge Maze] that the hospital would not administer the drug test without a court order. In response, [Judge Maze] issued an Order to St. Joseph Hospital to perform the drug screen. When St. Joseph refused to perform the drug screen, [Judge Maze] issued a second Order to Clark County Medical Center in a second attempt to allow her ex-husband to obtain the drug screen he desired. While under arrest and in the custody of Jailer Willis [Judge Maze] had direct communication with her ex-husband by telephone. [Judge Maze] failed to report this communication to the Commission in her self-report.

[Judge Maze's] disqualification was mandatory and there otherwise was no necessity established for her intervention in her ex-husband's criminal case. At no time was there a necessity that [Judge Maze] act as a Judge in this matter.

By a vote of 5-0, the Commission finds with respect to Count I that [Judge Maze] violated SCR 4.020(1)(B)(i) and that the actions of [Judge Maze] constituted misconduct in office. Furthermore. [Judge Maze's] actions violated SCR 4.300 and the relevant portions of the following Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as they existed at the time of the violation^[4]:

Canon 1 in that [Judge Maze] failed to maintain high standards of conduct and uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary;

Canon 2A in that [Judge Maze] failed to respect and comply with the law and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary;

Canon 2D in that [Judge Maze] lent the prestige of Judicial Office to advance the private interests of others;

Canon 3B(7) in that [Judge Maze] initiated or considered ex parte communications with parties and;

Canon 3E(l) in that [Judge Maze] failed to disqualify herself in a proceeding in which [Judge Maze's] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

COUNT II

On September 18, 2017, [Judge Maze] completed the first of two generic-form court orders by hand-writing instructions to St. Joseph Hospital in Mt. Sterling Kentucky to perform drug testing for the benefit of her ex-husband. When St. Joseph Hospital refused to honor the Order, Respondent completed and executed a second form Order in the same fashion. Respondent never presented either of these Orders to the Circuit Clerk for entry in the record of the criminal case against her ex-husband.

By a vote of 5-0, the Commission finds with respect to Count II that [Judge Maze] violated SCR 4.020(1)(B)(i) in that the actions of [Judge Maze] constituted misconduct in office. Further, [Judge Maze]’s actions violated SCR 4.300, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the relevant portions of the following Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct as they existed at the time of the violation:

Canon I in that [Judge Maze] failed to maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and did not personally observe those standards so that the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary would be preserved; Canon 2A in that [Judge Maze] did not respect and comply with the law and did not act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary and;

Canon 3E(l) in that [Judge Maze] failed to disqualify herself in a proceeding in which the Judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

COUNT III

On September 18, 2017, [Judge Maze] issued two separate Orders for a drug screen to St. Joseph Hospital and Clark County Medical Center, respectively. On the first Order [Judge Maze] wrote "Commonwealth Att. & Bath Co. Attorney" on the "Attorney for the Plaintiff" signature line indicating that both attorneys had seen and agreed to the Order and its contents. [Judge Maze] additionally placed Attorney Michael Campbell's name on the "Attorney for Defendant" signature line. On the second Order [Judge Maze] wrote, "Bath County Attorney" on the "Attorney for the Plaintiff" signature line, indicating that the Bath County Attorney had seen and agreed to the order and its contents. The prosecutors and Michael Campbell testified they never saw or agreed to either of the Orders.

[Judge Maze] never informed the Commonwealth Attorney or County Attorney that she had placed their names on these Orders. [Judge Maze] contacted Michael Campbell on September 19, 2017 to ask him to represent her ex-husband but did not tell him that she had placed his name on one of these Orders as counsel for her ex-husband.

By a vote of 5-0, the Commission finds with respect to Count III that [Judge Maze] violated SCR 4.020(1)(B)(i) and that the actions of [Judge Maze] constituted misconduct in office. Furthermore, [Judge Maze]’s actions violate SCR 4.300 and the relevant portions of the following Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as they existed at the time of the violation:

Canon 1 in that [Judge Maze] failed to maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and did not personally observe those standards and did not uphold the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary;

Canon 2A in that [Judge Maze] failed to respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary and;

Canon 3B(2) in that [Judge Maze] failed to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.

COUNT IV

Throughout the preliminary investigation of this matter up to and including the hearing, [Judge Maze] failed to disclose her actions as described in Count III to the Commission. At no time did [Judge Maze] acknowledge placing the titles of the Commonwealth/County Attorney or the name of Michael Campbell on these form Orders. A review of the form Orders in question shows that they are quite distinguishable from a different form Order [Judge Maze] said she meant to use. However, that form, unlike the form she did in fact use, does not contain a seal of the Commonwealth at the top and the two form Orders do not look similar.

Of even greater concern is that neither of the Orders was ever entered of record in the Circuit Clerk's Office nor distributed to the parties as required by the Rules of Criminal Procedure. This unrefuted fact renders [Judge Maze's] explanation that she was confused by an outdated form unpersuasive. Because [Judge Maze] prevented the entry of the Orders, the clerk could not distribute them, and they never were distributed by anyone, to anyone, until [Judge Maze] sent them to the Commission. An argument that [Judge Maze] mistook these signature lines for distribution lines defies logic because it is contradicted by her subsequent conscious decision to withhold them from the clerk, thereby preventing the distribution. Insisting on this dubious reasoning undermines the credibility of [Judge Maze's] representation that she was confused by the form.

By a vote of 5-0, the Commission finds with respect to Count IV that [Judge Maze] violated SCR 4.020 (1)(B)(i) and that the actions of [Judge Maze] constituted misconduct in office and violated SCR 4.300, the Code of Judicial Conduct, in that [Judge Maze] failed to observe high standards of conduct in violation Canon 2, Rule 2.16 requiring judges to cooperate with the Commission, which includes acting candidly and honestly.

COUNT V^[5]

The Commission by a vote of 5-0, concludes that the charge in Count V was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, Count V is dismissed.

COUNT VI

On November 29, 2018, just four (4) days before [Judge Maze's] hearing before the Commission was set to commence, [Judge Maze], who was suspended from her Judicial duties and who had no authority to communicate with Judge Eddy Coleman regarding the text message for any reason, made ex parte contact with Judge Coleman, a sitting member of the Judicial Conduct Commission, regarding the Commission's denial of a Motion filed by Counsel for [Judge Maze] in the

...