By Jessica Paine | Aug. 23, 2024
On Thursday, the Kentucky Supreme Court just released a 108-page ruling in the case brought against the Judicial Conduct Commission by former circuit judge James (Jamie) Jameson over the commission removing him from office in November 2022.
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.
In the opinion, the high court affirmed the commission’s findings on Counts II and VII; Counts I and III were affirmed in part and denied in part; and Counts IV, V and VI were dismissed. VanMeter and Bisig dissented regarding Counts IV and V, arguing that the commission did provide clear and convincing evidence to support its findings.
COUNT I – AFFIRMED IN PART, DENIED IN PART
The court upheld the JCC’s finding that the CCB was created for an improper purpose was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court also upheld the finding that Jameson developed procedures, local rules and forms for ankle monitor program without the approval of the chief justice.
About the charges contained in Count I related to an RFP (request for proposals) issued by the Calloway County Fiscal Court on a contract to provide ankle monitoring services for both Marshall and Calloway counties, justices did not agree with all of the JCC’s findings.
The JCC deemed Jameson’s voluntary appearances before the fiscal courts of Marshall and Calloway counties to advise them that the practices around ankle monitors in place at the time violated the law to be improper, and the high court agreed.
The court further agreed with the JCC that clear and convincing evidence showed Jameson’s role in developing the RFP was unethical and affected the fairness of a public bidding process, but it disagreed that the conduct constituted “bid rigging,” based on the statutory definition of the term.
“‘Bid-rigging’ was a label that was used by me to characterize, what I thought, his actions amounted to,” JCC attorney Jeffrey Mando said in an interview Thursday. “And I think it’s important that, while the Supreme Court found that it was not bid-rigging, given the definition of bid-rigging in the statute that they cited, the important thing, which was proven by clear and convincing evidence, is that he clearly had a conflict of interest and he was using the prestige of his office for his own personal benefit. Those findings, which the court held were supported by clear and convincing evidence, are what is important.”
Count I also included charges that Jameson directly solicited funding for Re-Life, a CCB project aimed at building a residential SUD treatment facility to serve Marshall and Calloway counties. According to the opinion, judges are allowed to “assist” charitable organizations and nonprofits with planning related to fundraising.
“Consequently,” the opinion states, “to the extent the JCC found Judge Jameson committed misconduct by participating in the planning of the May 2021 Re-Life fundraising event, we disagree and will not consider that alleged misconduct when determining an appropriate sanction.”
Jameson was also found guilty of misconduct by the JCC for directly soliciting funds via the Re-Life website as well as in radio ads, emails and flyers promoting a Re-Life fundraising event.
“If the JCC had offered evidence demonstrating that Judge Jameson was responsible for the creation of the website or had directed that it be created,” the majority wrote, “its finding of direct solicitation could be upheld. But, absent that proof, this Court cannot say that its finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence.”
About the radio ads, justices were in agreement that it was not unethical for Jameson to allow his title to be used in connection with a fundraising event “so long as the ad did not involve Judge Jameson’s personal solicitation of contributions.”
However, the court sided with the JCC that clear and convincing evidence supported the charges related to solicitating funds through emails and flyers.
The final issue addressed in Count I was a grant application Jameson submitted for the CCB. The court agreed that it was not legally permissible for the CCB to apply for Kentucky State Corrections Commission grants, which are only available to community corrections board properly organized under KRS196.701. The court, however, disagreed that the act of putting the title “circuit judge” on the applications constituted a “blatant abuse of power.”
In total, the JCC found Jameson’s actions, as outlined in Count I, violated 10 judicial canons, specifically, Rule 1.1, Rule 1.2, Rule 1.3, Rule 2.1, Rule 2.4(B), Rule 3.1(A), Rule 3.1(C), Rule 3.1(D), Rule 3.2 and Rule 3.7(A)(4). Although justices did not agree that clear and convincing evidence supported all of the charges, they did agree that Jameson violated all of those canons.
COUNT II – AFFIRMED
Count II was solely focused on the CCB’s ankle monitor program. The JCC found Jameson violated nine judicial canons by using his Kentucky Court of Justice (KCOJ) employees to perform duties for the CCB, such as drafting documents and overseeing the ankle monitor program, and for having CCB employees, who were not employed by KCOJ, notify him directly about alleged ankle monitor violations, which resulted in him issuing arrest warrants for those defendants on multiple occasions. The high court upheld all of the JCC’s finding that Jameson violated nine judicial canons, namely, Rule 1.1, Rule 1.2, Rule 1.3, Rule 2.1, Rule 2.2, Rule 2.9(C), Rule 2.12(A) and Rule 3.7(6)(a).
“We want to be clear for the benefit of other judges in the Commonwealth that, under normal circumstances, KRS 431.520(9) permits a judge to order the arrest of a defendant upon being advised that a defendant has not complied with the conditions of his or her release, and that statute does not specify from whom that information must come,” the opinion clarifies. “… However, under the set of highly unusual circumstances presented by this case, it was not appropriate or ethical for Judge Jameson to issue arrest warrants based solely on information that came from an employee of his own corporation.”
COUNT III – AFFIRMED IN PART, DENIED IN PART
Accusations of mismanaging his courtroom, deviating from acceptable standards of judicial conduct and engaging in acts of retaliation – all charges laid out in Count III – dominated the testimony and evidence presented at Jameson’s 10-hour temporary suspension hearing in August 2022. The JCC found Jameson violated seven judicial canons.
But the court found that the JCC only proved by clear and convincing evidence that Jameson engaged in two acts of retaliation, violating five canons (Rule 1.1, Rule 1.2, Rule 2.2, Rule 2.4(B) and Rule 2.8(B)), not seven.
COUNT IV – DISMISSED
Under Count IV, the JCC found Jameson guilty of using “his influence and the prestige of his judicial office” to pressure Lisa DeRenard, an attorney in Marshall County, to donate to his reelection campaign. Noting that DeRenard testified that Jameson only asked for her “support,” and she was the one who brought up making a donation.
“The question, then, is whether it was ethical for Judge Jameson to not reject her suggestion that she make a financial contribution to his campaign and thereafter direct her to send the funds to his campaign committee,” Lambert wrote for the majority. “We hold that it was.”
VanMeter and Bisig disagreed. In a separate opinion joined by Bisig, VanMeter wrote, “Judge Jameson’s failure to explicitly ask DeRenard to make a financial contribution to his campaign does not insulate from the charge. I do not believe our ethical canons are so rigid as to be so easily nullified by oblique requests.”
COUNT V – DISMISSED
The JCC found Jameson guilty on Count IV for repeatedly attempting to obstruct justice and impede the JCC’s authority for contacting his staff and instructing them to not comply with a JCC subpoena. The majority found the JCC did not meet its burden of proof.
“To be sure, it was wholly improper for Judge Jameson to contact his judicial staff at that time because the JCC’s temporary removal order had not yet been voided,” she continued. “The misconduct alleged under Count V was that Judge Jameson ‘repeatedly attempted to impede and obstruct’ the JCC’s investigation by intimidating and attempting to interfere with his judicial staff’s compliance with JCC’s subpoena.”
The majority determined Jameson was not interfering because he did not explicitly tell his staff to not comply.
Again, VanMeter and Bisig were not assuaged. “The fact that Judge Jameson never spoke the words, ‘do not comply with the subpoena’ does not save him,” VanMeter wrote. “Again, I do not believe our ethical canons can only be broken by an unambiguous declaration of intent to break them.”
COUNT VI – DISMISSED
All sitting justices were in agreement to dismiss Count VI, which was related to actions Jameson took after the temporary suspension hearing. After the high court voided the JCC’s temporary removal order, the charges under Count VI were rendered moot.
COUNT VII – AFFIRMED
Originally, the charges under Count VII exclusively concerned Jameson’s attempt to quash a potential news story about a Marshall County Judicial Building surveillance video that showed the judge walking in the courthouse in his underwear.
Although said video was heavily discussed throughout the proceedings in filings, testimony and in media coverage, what it actually showed, beyond the description above, was not known until Thursday.
“The video, captured on February 11, 2022, at approximately 6:35 am, depicted Judge Jameson walking downstairs from his chambers to an employee entrance in a t-shirt, boxers, and socks,” the states. “After a short interaction with his wife and two children at the employee entrance, he walked back up the stairs toward his office.”
In the opinion, justices viewed other incidents related to the video that were originally charged in different counts as evidence related to Count VII, namely around Jameson’s efforts to have Marshall County Judicial Center Lead Court Security Seargent Jeff Daniel removed from his position.
Collectively, the court found those incidents to be clear and convincing evidence that Jameson committed misconduct, violating three judicial canons, namely, Rule 1.1, Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.3.
