These decisions were made despite Judicial Standards Commission recommendations to publicly reprimand judges. This is likely the first time in over a decade that the court has not followed the commission’s advice.
Three sources who were directly involved in the decision say that the North Carolina Supreme Court, behind closed doors, squelched disciplinary actions against two Republican judges last fall after they admitted to violating the state’s code of conduct.
Unlawfully, one of the judges ordered that a court-appointed witness be imprisoned. One judge escalated an argument in court with a defendant that led to the death of the defendant by a police officer. The Judicial Standards Commission (the arm of the Supreme Court of New York that investigates allegations against judges) had recommended the court publicly reprimand the two women. The court, which is dominated by Republicans, did not give any public reasons for rejecting these recommendations. State law requires that such decisions be kept confidential.
Sources spoke with ProPublica under the condition of anonymity, as many actions and decisions taken by both institutions were confidential. They also feared retaliation.
According to the Center for Judicial Ethics of the National Center for State Courts, North Carolina has one of the highest levels in America when it comes to disciplining its judges. More than half of the states make disciplinary actions against judges public after charges have been filed with their judicial ethical commission. Twelve more states make them public once they reach their state’s highest court. North Carolina, along with the District of Columbia is one of three states that only releases information at the very end of the process, after the Supreme Court has ordered discipline.
Stephen Gillers, professor emeritus of New York University Law School, who specializes on legal and judicial ethical issues, says that it can be necessary to make certain parts of disciplinary proceedings against judges confidential in order to protect personal or private information. He said that North Carolina went too far. Gillers stated that while secrecy is important in judicial discipline it can also be used as a way to hide wrongdoing. The case should be made public once a disciplinary panel has found wrongdoing.
In more than a ten-year period, the Supreme Court of North Carolina has not followed the recommendation by the commission to punish the two judges. This decision was not reported previously. These decisions are made at a time when accusations and recriminations have been leveled about the influence of politics on North Carolina’s highest court. Justice Anita Earls sued the commission last year after it opened an investigation over comments she made that suggested Republican justices are influenced by conservative ideologies. She defended her remarks as free speech. In a Supreme Court ruling in September, a Republican justice attacked Earls personally. The year before, external groups had also sought to recuse more than half the justices of the Supreme Court over conflict of interest allegations.
The Judicial Standards Commission and the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to respond to detailed questions or to make any comments.
Asher Hildebrand a professor of Public Policy at Duke University explained that North Carolina in the 2010s had policies to keep the judiciary out of the political fray. These included nonpartisan judicial election. However, the gradual dismantling of these policies by the Republican-controlled legislature has driven the court’s polarization, according to Hildebrand.
He said: “While we may long for the days where courts were seen as above politics, they are still very much a battleground of partisanship.”
Bob Orr said that partisan disagreements over the process of judicial standards have increased in recent years.
“The judicial standards process needs a major overhaul in that I don’t think it was set up to deal with the current political atmosphere that judges have been embroiled in,” said Orr, who back in the early 2000s was investigated and received a private warning from the then-Democratic-controlled commission over comments that it deemed to be an impermissible political endorsement. He left the Republican Party after being vocal about his criticism of Donald Trump.
Orr said, “It is important that all decision makers in the process of judicial standards — the commission, the staff, and the Supreme Court — act in a neutral way to increase the trust in the judiciary system.”
According to annual court reports, the Judicial Standards Commission of North Carolina has referred to the Supreme Court 19 cases for judicial discipline since 2011. The court has issued 17 public discipline orders in that time. These range from reprimands and suspensions without pay to suspensions with no pay.
If the Supreme Court had followed the recommendations of the commission in the cases of two Republican judges, they would have been publicly reprimanded ahead of their elections in 2024. Judge Lori Hamilton had been a Republican for a long time and campaigned under the slogan “the ideal conservatism.” Judge Caroline Burnette was a Democrat before she changed her registration to Republican.
Burnette, while conducting a trial in September 2021, got into an argument with Christopher Vaughan who was charged with false imprisonment. WRAL News published court recordings of a three minute argument that escalated when Burnette told Vaughan “shut up”. When Burnette asked the bailiff to take him, Vaughan ran towards Burnette. The bailiff blocked Vaughan, they grappled and the bailiff yelled that Vaughan was carrying a gun. The incident was widely reported. A police officer was testifying in court when he shot Vaughan, killing him.
Burnette refused to comment. The work of the commission is confidential. However, sources claim that the commission began an investigation into Burnette shortly after it was formed. Burnette had violated several parts of the judicial codes, including those that require a judge “to maintain order and decorum during proceedings”, and that judges “should be patient, dignified, and courteous.” Burnette refused to answer ProPublica’s detailed questions, according to a spokesperson for the state courts system.
Hamilton presided over the trial of an accused man in November 2021. Hamilton, according to court transcripts accused the mother of the victims for bringing them late to court and being previously uncooperative with state’s attorneys. “I will take you into protective care to ensure that you appear here at trial,”