# In Re Berkhimer

> Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2003 · 828 A.2d 19

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701666

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Allan Clifford BERKHIMER, District Justice in and For; Magisterial District 47-3-06; Cambria County
- **Court:** Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 20, 2003
- **Citations:** 828 A.2d 19; 2003 Pa. Jud. Disc. LEXIS 4; 2003 WL 21686061
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Leadbetter
- **Judges:** Sposato, Leadbetter, Cognetti, Horgos, Oleary, Seneca, Beasley, Halesey
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9701666

## Opinion text

LEADBETTER, J.,
files a dissenting opinion.
Dissenting Statement of Judge LEADBETTER.
I must respectfully dissent from the sanction order imposed by the court in this matter. Based upon facts to which the parties stipulated, we found in our decision of May 20, 2003:
It is beyond any dispute that when Respondent “approached” Officer Kos-mac, the arresting officer, and “discussed the charges against Dean George pending before District Justice Decort in a manner understood to effectuate a specific outcome,” he was “interfering *25 with the systematic or normal functions of the court.”3
3 Although the Stipulations of Fact seem to carefully avoid stating that the discussion of the charges with Officer Kosmac had to do with a reduction of the charges and that the "specific outcome” sought was elimination of the DUI charge, it is perfectly clear that that was the case, for, after the discussion, Officer Kosmac did reduce the charges and did eliminate the DUI charge.
Opinion at p. 24. 1
Although there may be more egregious examples than this one, I can think of few infractions of the judicial rules more serious than that of a judge using the authority of his office to influence the result in a pending case. In my judgment when such conduct is established, substantial sanctions are not only merited but are necessary to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.
Accordingly, I would impose a suspension of at least ninety days without pay.
. Having admitted this conduct, Respondent attempted at the sanction hearing to paint the conversation as an innocent one during which he thoughtlessly "crossed the line” by expressing sympathy for Mr. George. I found this testimony to be wholly incredible, and at all events contrary to his specific admission and this court’s factual finding.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701666. Public record. Not legal advice.