“The evidence concerning respondent’s manner during the above proceedings was sharply in conflict..;. The evidence in this regard is not clear and convincing and is insufficient to sustain the imposition of an official reprimand.”
How later courts described this case
- “The evidence concerning respondent’s manner during the above proceedings was sharply in conflict..;. The evidence in this regard is not clear and convincing and is insufficient to sustain the imposition of an official reprimand.”
- refusing to officially reprimand a judge for speaking in a "loud and aggressive voice[ ]"
- judges acting in pressure-laden situations should not be required to fear automatic discipline because a contempt ruling might later be reversed on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING STATEMENT
Mr. Justice ROBERTS dissents and would accept the recommendation of The Judicial Inquiry and Review Board, dated March 22, 1978. (See Report of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board, filed August 3, 1978 in the Office of the Prothonotary — Eastern District.)
LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority is willing to excuse an ill-tempered, jail-happy judge’s behavior even though the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board (judicial disciplinary arm of the Supreme Court) recommended that some sanction be applied. In the two cases before us Judge Johnson decided to throw two people (a policeman and an attorney) in jail because he whimsically and angrily did not like what they did. His actions were to further his own personal emotional needs as opposed to judicial-public servant needs. His behavior is characteristic of a bully. Judge Johnson should be suspended from office for one month during which time all pay and benefits would be forfeited.
It may be that Judge Johnson does not have the desired judicial temperament required of those who serve on the bench. If there is no improvement in Judge Johnson’s behavior after this suspension, he should be removed from office permanently.