# In Re Hamilton

> Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania · July 27, 2007 · 932 A.2d 1037

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637106

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Maynard A. HAMILTON, Jr., Magisterial District Judge in and for Magisterial District 02-3-03, Lancaster County
- **Court:** Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 27, 2007
- **Citations:** 932 A.2d 1037; 2007 Pa. Jud. Disc. LEXIS 1; 2007 WL 2181526
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Musmanno
- **Judges:** Musmanno, Streib
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637106

## Opinion text

DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
Judge MUSMANNO.
I respectfully dissent from the sanction order imposed by the Court in the above-captioned matter.
While I certainly do not countenance the conduct of Respondent in this case and joined in the Court’s opinion which expressed strong disapproval of the conduct, I believe the Court, in imposing the sanction of nine months suspension without pay was unduly harsh and did not give sufficient weight to the testimony at the sanction hearing which established the following.
1. Respondent has served as a judge since 1988 — almost 20 years — and this is the sole episode of non-judicial conduct during those years.
2. There is no pattern of violent conduct or of Respondent losing his temper.
3. Respondent has always conducted his courtroom with decorum, and with respect for litigants, witnesses, lawyers and all who come before him.
4. Respondent has apologized to Sergeant Buser, the victim of his assault, as well as to his wife.
5. Sergeant Buser and Respondent have a friendly relationship, more so now *1038 than before this incident. Further, Sergeant Buser testified on Respondent’s behalf at the sanction hearing.
6. Respondent cooperated with the Board by stipulating to the essential facts here at issue.
7. Respondent has expressed remorse for his conduct which gave rise to the Board’s charges.
Accordingly, I believe the sanction of nine months suspension without pay followed by probation for one year is too severe.
STREIB, J., joins in this dissenting statement.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637106. Public record. Not legal advice.