FRANKFORT – The Kentucky Supreme Court released its opinion Thursday in an appeal brought by former circuit judge James (Jamie) Jameson against the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) after it found him guilty of misconduct and removed him from the bench in 2022. The high court affirmed part of the JCC’s findings and denied others, ultimately finding that Jameson’s actions did warrant removal from the bench; however, the ruling makes clear that the JCC does not have the authority to permanently remove a judge from office.
JCC attorney Jeffrey Mando said in an interview Thursday that he was pleased the court unanimously agreed that the facts and circumstances proven during the proceedings warranted Jameson’s removal from office.
“The evidence was overwhelming that he’d engaged in a pattern of practice of unethical, improper and inappropriate conduct that tainted the judiciary in Marshall and Calloway counties,” Mando said. “The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that it is critically important that judges remain independent, impartial and that their integrity be above reproach, and their ruling reaffirms that message to the public.”
Jameson first took the bench as judge for the 42nd Judicial Circuit, which encompasses both Marshall and Calloway counties, in 2015. He was in the midst of his first bid for reelection when the JCC filed a notice of formal proceedings in June 2022, charging the judge with four counts of judicial misconduct. The JCC amended the charging document multiple times, ultimately adding three additional counts by the time the final hearing started on Oct. 17.
After a 10-hour temporary suspension hearing in August 2022, the JCC voted 3:2 to suspend the judge, with pay, for the duration of the proceedings. Jameson turned to the Supreme Court for relief regarding his suspension. On Oct. 31, the court issued a writ of prohibition, voiding the JCC’s temporary suspension order ab initio (from the beginning) because Supreme Court Rules state that four affirmative votes are required to suspend a judge.
On Nov. 4, four days before the 2022 general election, the JCC released its findings of fact, conclusions of law and final order, which called Jameson “unfit” for office. He was not only removed from the bench but also disqualified from holding office in the upcoming term in the event he won reelection.
The timing of the JCC’s proceedings against Jameson brought to light a hole in Kentucky case law. While it is well-established that the JCC has the authority to remove a judge for the current term, the Supreme Court had not weighed in on whether the JCC can permanently remove a judge from office.
Deputy Chief Justice Debra Hembree Lambert wrote the majority opinion, and Justices Robert B. Conley and Michelle M. Keller concurred. Justice Kelly Thompson concurred but penned a separate opinion. Also, by separate opinions, Chief Justice Laurance B. VanMeter and Justice Angela McCormick Bisig concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Shea Nickell recused.
“This Court has never addressed whether a judge’s removal may extend beyond that period either for an indefinite period or permanently,” the majority opinion states, adding that “permanent removal from office encroaches upon the impeachment powers vested solely in our legislature. … We conclude that the permanent removal of a state official elected by the people must be the result of actions taken by a body of representatives also elected by the people: our legislature.”
On this finding, Bisig, alone, dissented. “I believe that the Commission may, in exercising sound judgment, remove a judge from sitting within our judiciary entirely if that punishment is supported by clear and convincing evidence,” she wrote in a separate opinion.
“I knew that was an unsettled question of law before this decision came down,” Mando said. “We now have clarity about the limits on the commission’s power under the Kentucky Constitution. Justice Bisig obviously felt that the commission did have that authority. No Kentucky case has specifically addressed that issue, and we now have clarity.”
Regardless, there was consensus among the justices that Jameson’s behaviors and actions warranted removal from office.
Justices unanimously agreed the JCC met its burden of proof, which is “clear and convincing evidence” in JCC proceedings, on Counts II and VII. The high court disagreed with some of the commission’s findings related to Counts I and III, affirming 14 of the 16 violations charged by the JCC.
The majority agreed the JCC failed to meet its burden of proof on Counts IV, V and VI and dismissed those counts, but VanMeter, joined by Bisig, dissented regarding Counts IV and V, arguing that the commission did offer the clear and convincing evidence necessary to support its findings. (Click here to read a count-by-count breakdown.)
Although Thompson wholly concurred with the majority, he penned a separate, 11-page opinion to articulate his support for Jameson’s efforts to address SUD in his jurisdiction and voice issues he had with how the JCC handled his case.
Among his chief concerns, the JCC did not address Jameson’s accusation that the flurry of complaints filed against him were part of a political conspiracy to benefit his opponent in the 2022 general election, despite evidence on the record, including testimony from attorney Lisa DeRenard and retired Calloway Circuit Clerk Linda Avery, that supported his claims.
“I consider this conduct extremely serious,” Thompson wrote. “An attempt to utilize a completely non-partisan commission to further political motives is improper and should be addressed.”
He faulted the JCC for not investigating Jameson’s opponent, current Calloway Circuit Judge Andrea Moore, noting that the JCC has the authority to investigate judicial candidates.
“Judicial candidates are not allowed to ‘knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false statement of material fact’ and are required to ‘take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons’ do not do so ‘on [her] behalf,’” Thompson wrote, citing Rule 4.1. “The issue of ‘dirty tricks’ should have been addressed by the JCC.”
Mando, when asked if he thought the JCC should have investigated Moore, said, “No, absolutely not. I am 100% confident that the actions the commission took – from the initiation of this investigation to our prosecution of the charges – were based solely and exclusively and the evidence. Politics had absolutely nothing to do with the commission’s decisions in this case.”
Thompson noted a screenshot of a Facebook post by Moore, which Jameson submitted as evidence, wherein she wrote Jameson had 45 pending complaints before the JCC. But the justice advised that “only the JCC knows” how many complaints were filed against Jameson.
“If this figure is correct,” Thompson wrote, “I can only conclude there is overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy to file complaints against Judge Jameson and that someone was collecting reports regarding the filing of these confidential complaints; if this figure is false, I can only presume that his political opponent was attempting to manipulate the election through spreading false information. … The civility normally present in most judicial races was noticeably lacking in her conduct.”
“I made the decision to run against Jamie Jameson due to what I had seen with my own two eyes in court and also some of the things I experienced practicing in front of him,” Moore said in an interview Thursday. “I felt as though a change needed to occur. I think something to point out is that I have never filed judicial complaint against anybody, in all of the years that I’ve practiced. I’ve never filed a judicial complaint against Jamie Jameson or any other judge.
“My way of trying to implement change in our community was to run and talk about the things that needed to change in the court system. And I feel that I did a good job in communicating what I felt like needed to change. But the fact that he says there was a conspiracy and this and that, you know, it’s unfortunate that Justice Thompson even really gave that any type of credibility whatsoever because, again, the decision to run was my family and mine alone. Nobody had any type of influence over that.”
“At least one Justice stated a strong opinion he believed the complaints were initiated to influence the 2022 election,” Jameson wrote, referring to Thompson, in a texted statement. “That Justice also called my record ‘largely exemplary,’ and stated, ‘the only reason there was impropriety in (my) actions, was because’ I served as Judge and head of the Community Corrections Board at the same time.”
The statement included another edited quote from Thompson’s opinion. Thompson wrote, “It is true Judge Jameson made many missteps in his attempts to serve his community but there is no proof that those mistakes came from anything other than his selfless zeal for the plight of impoverished and drug-dependent Kentuckians.” Notably, Jameson’s version substituted an ellipsis for the word “many.”
By separate text, Jameson added that Thompson “also made the recommendation that the JCC should look into Andrea Moore’s conduct during the campaign.”
Moore said she is glad the case is now “behind us” and that she hopes Jameson can start moving on with his life. “I have certainly moved on with mine and the job that I’m trying to do for the community.”
As for how the 42nd Judicial District is addressing SUD now, Moore said, “Our drug court team is some of the best people I’ve ever worked with, and we have built more participants than we’ve about ever had at this point. … Every single Thursday, I have drug court, so I can see, on a weekly basis, the difference that we’re making in people’s lives. And we’re doing it the proper way – through the drug court system.”
Under the rules of appellate procedure, Jameson can still file a petition for rehearing, which would mean asking the court to reconsider all or a portion of its ruling. The filing deadline is Sept. 1.
Editor’s note: This article was reformatted on Aug. 24.
