Judges are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct. That is a document proposed by the American Bar Association (a voluntary group to which some lawyers belong), and adopted in various forms by the states. Each state's code may differ in various ways from the ABA "model" and thus from each other. That said, most have included the Model Canon 1:
"A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."
I have introduced the reader to various judges over the years. There are many ways for judges to be at odds with the Code of Judicial Conduct. See Fund Raising and Politics by Judges (October 2018) and the various posts linked there. And there have been a few that graced these pages for actions and behavior that were more troublesome.
The New Miranda Warning (April 2020) described some alcohol use. So did Conferences and Consequences (November 2019). That was a real classic. It referenced heavy drinking, strip clubs, White Castle hamburgers, and the use of sign language. Some of the "do" and "don't" of being a judge are simply not that difficult to sort out. And, though we are governed by onerous rules that do not apply to most of society, those societal rules apply to us also.
Most recently there was She Must Go (May 2024). A critical point there was that judges are judges no matter the time. Judges are judges no matter the place. You are subject to this Code of Judicial Conduct even when the robe is off, or if you don't even own a robe or little wooden hammer in the first place. In She Must Go, a disciplinary proceeding of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Committee is recounted. It centered on "40 allegations of alleged judicial misconduct."
Adjectives were used to describe the situation included:
"Snarky""confused""hasty""sickeningly disproportionate"
In her defense, her attorney refuted the allegations. Though there were several allegations, counsel concluded “This is not a judge, that, in my view, even comes close to somebody that you would remove from the bench.” I noted that allegations are simply that and "there is not fire whenever there is smoke, but as the volume of smoke rises the search for fire will likely intensify."
The Commission concluded its efforts with findings of
"systemic incompetence""abuse""inappropriate" and"failure to perform."
The Commission recommended that she be removed from the bench. Days passed, but not so many. The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC.com) reported the next week that Judge Peterson was "ousted by voters" in a primary election. Both the Commission report and Losing an election are undoubtedly stressful.
May turned into June, and one recent Thursday morning an off-duty police officer in a nightclub "saw a woman who was crying." Many have seen that over the years, crying is unfortunate but not so surprising. The officer allegedly tried to speak to the woman. And, the officer says that Douglas County Judge Christina Peterson (yes, the same Judge Peterson) interceded in the police officer's conversation and the officer was "struck on the head."
One simple hint, never hit a police officer. That seems a simple rule, but a surprising number of people are arrested for that each year. WSB-TV Atlanta reports that the Judge did not identify herself and "appeared to be under the influence." Fox5 Atlanta reports that Judge "Peterson is facing felony obstruction of a police officer by using threats or violence and simple battery against a police officer."
Fox5 also reports that at the time, the judge "reportedly refused to tell officers her name." Newsweek reported on the arrest, and led with the headline "Infamous Georgia Judge Arrested in Nightclub Fight With Cop." It described Judge Peterson as "controversial" and somewhat "notorious."
Some reports refer to "judge" and others to "former judge."
The judge is quoted saying the arrest "was a setup." AJC News reports that the judge was "at the club with friends for a birthday party" and the "incident" occurred "shortly after 3 a.m." It says that the judge "approached a male police officer and struck him 'with a closed fist' and that the incident was captured on the officer's body camera." Other sources, such as 11Alive note that what happened is unclear from viewing the video, which has also been published.
What may be most clear in the circumstances is an appearance. The code addresses the difficult-to-define and sometimes challenging "appearance of impropriety" standard. Though difficult to define, there is fair warning in this situation for all judges. First, 3:00 a.m. is not a good time to be out and about. An age-old axiom holds that "Almost nothing good happens after midnight."
That is likely not fair, and it is certainly overbroad. It is nonetheless difficult to remember the last time you heard of a mid-day brawl at a club or restaurant. Whether it is confirmation bias or happenstance, the news does seem to present us with many untoward examples of behaviour after midnight.
Another clarity is that alcohol can have an impact on the manner in which we perceive the world and the way it perceives us. This is no reason that a judge cannot enjoy a cocktail. However, as Conferences and Consequences reminded us, the more cocktails consumed and the later the hour perhaps the more chance of difficulties.
Finally, there is an inherent ubiquity of cameras. I noted this in Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015). If you have not noticed that the world is full of cameras, you need to read more (or watch some YouTube). There is a very high probability that you are on camera any time you leave home. For good or bad, the cameras are always rolling. While you might hope that is not true, it will almost always be true when interacting with the police.
Unfortunately, the challenges for Judge Peterson remain. She is undoubtedly under great stress. Nonetheless, the appearance in the news is not flattering, and the addition of adjectives like "infamous," "controversial," and "notorious" to one's repertoire may not be positive.
Judges have to remain focused on the "appearance." The world is not fair in this regard. The standard is ambiguous and difficult. But, it is the standard that persists, which we accept when taking the job. That is not fair, but little in this world is. We can lament it privately, but we must remember it and live it. That's good advice at 03:00 in the morning.