In re DiLeo

Summary

The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed judicial-misconduct charges against former Linden municipal court judge Louis M.J. DiLeo arising from his handling of the trial of two defendants. The Court considered when egregious legal error, including denial of counsel and abandonment of judicial impartiality, constitutes misconduct warranting discipline under the Code of Judicial Conduct. The opinion applies a case-by-case approach focused on whether the conduct undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

Holdings

1. Legal error may constitute judicial misconduct when, by clear and convincing evidence, it is objectively contrary to clear and determined law about which there is no confusion or question as to its interpretation, and the error is egregious, made in bad faith, or made as part of a pattern or practice of legal error.
2. A defendant's earlier attempt to retain private counsel does not constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appointed counsel when the defendant later requests a public defender; the court must conduct a searching inquiry before finding that the right to counsel has been relinquished.
3. A judge commits egregious legal error when the judge assumes the role of prosecutor, personally cross-examines defendants and witnesses, relies on evidence elicited through that questioning to convict, and permits a non-attorney police officer to serve as the State's sole representative.
4. Judge DiLeo's conduct constituted egregious legal error and judicial misconduct violating Canons 1, 2A, and 3A(1), because it violated clear law and fundamental rights and had the capacity to undermine public confidence in the judiciary; a public reprimand was warranted.

Questions Presented

1. What standard governs whether a judge's legal error constitutes judicial misconduct subject to discipline under the Code of Judicial Conduct?
2. Did Judge DiLeo's handling of the Kirkland brothers' municipal trial constitute egregious legal error and judicial misconduct under the adopted standard?
3. Was public reprimand the appropriate discipline?

Disposition

other