Opinion

Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 99-09, re Kinsey

  • 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 97
  • 842 So. 2d 77
  • 2003 Fla. LEXIS 103
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Filed
Jan 30, 2003
Status
Published
Author
Wells
On the bench
Anstead, Harding, Lewis, Pariente, Quince, Shaw, Wells
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 0.9%

The opinion

WELLS, J.,

dissenting.

I dissent from the majority’s decision. I would approve only the recommendation that Judge Kinsey was guilty of material misrepresentations in charges 7 and 9. For that, I believe the appropriate sanction would be a public reprimand.

My reason for dissenting as to the acceptance of the other charges is that I believe that the JQC’s findings of guilt in respect to those charges are in direct conflict with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 , 122 S.Ct. 2528 , 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002). While I agree with this Court’s majority that the Court in White did not declare our Code’s “pledge or promise” clause unconstitutional, I cannot read the charges for which the JQC found Judge Kinsey guilty in charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12 as being other than charges based upon Judge Kinsey announcing her position on these matters. The guilty findings run directly contrary to the United States Supreme Court decision by which we are bound.

QUINCE, J., concurs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.