In re Merlo, 619 Pa. 1

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the permanent removal of Magisterial District Judge Maryesther S. Merlo by the Court of Judicial Discipline. The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported violations involving absenteeism, delayed case disposition, improper handling of landlord-tenant matters, and abusive courtroom conduct, and affirmed the sanctions as lawful. The opinion discusses the constitutional standards governing judicial-discipline proceedings and appellate review of sanctions.

Holdings

1. The Court of Judicial Discipline properly determined that Merlo's chronic absenteeism, habitual tardiness, failure to timely perform judicial duties, and related courtroom conduct were sufficiently extreme to bring her judicial office into disrepute in violation of Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
2. The evidence supported the CJD's findings that Merlo violated MDJ Rules 3A, 4A, 4C, and 5A and neglected or failed to perform the duties of her office under Article V, Section 18(d)(1).
3. The CJD's factual findings were supported by sufficient clear, direct, weighty, and convincing evidence and were not clearly erroneous.
4. Permanent removal from judicial office and prohibition from holding future judicial office were lawful sanctions under Article V, Section 18.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Merlo's chronic absenteeism, habitual tardiness, and related conduct brought her judicial office into disrepute under Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
2. Whether the evidence supported the findings that Merlo neglected or failed to perform the duties of her office and violated MDJ Rules 3A, 4A, 4C, and 5A.
3. Whether permanent removal from judicial office was a lawful sanction under Article V, Section 18(c)(2) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
4. Whether the Court of Judicial Discipline's factual findings were clearly erroneous.

Disposition

affirmed