In
the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the
Judiciary Law in Relation to PATRICK J. McGRATH, a Judge of the County
Court, Rensselaer County.
THE
COMMISSION:
Lawrence
S. Goldman, Esq., Chair
Honorable
Frances A. Ciardullo, Vice Chair
Stephen
R. Coffey, Esq.
Colleen
C. DiPirro
Richard
D. Emery, Esq.
Raoul
Lionel Felder, Esq.
Christina
Hernandez, M.S.W.
Honorable
Daniel F. Luciano
Honorable
Karen K. Peters
Alan
J. Pope, Esq.
Honorable
Terry Jane Ruderman
APPEARANCES:
Robert
H. Tembeckjian (Kathryn J. Blake, Of Counsel) for the Commission
Anderson,
Moschetti & Taffany, PLLC (by Peter J. Moschetti, Jr.) for Respondent
The respondent, Patrick J. McGrath, a judge of the County Court,
Rensselaer County, was served with a Formal Written Complaint dated July 1,
2004, containing one charge.
On August
31, 2004, the administrator of the Commission, respondent and respondent’s
counsel entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts pursuant to Judiciary Law §44(5),
stipulating that the Commission make its determination based upon the agreed
facts, recommending that respondent be admonished and waiving further
submissions and oral argument.
On
September 23, 2004, the Commission approved the agreed statement and made the
following determination.
1.
Respondent has been a judge of the Rensselaer County Court since 1994 and
was re-elected to a ten-year term on November 4, 2003.
2.
Between May 12, 2003 and September 4, 2003, respondent presided over a
highly publicized murder trial, People v. Christine Wilhelm.
Respondent was a candidate for re-election in that time period.
3.
In the course of the Wilhelm trial, several days were devoted to hearings
regarding the admissibility of certain evidence relevant to the defendant’s
assertion of an insanity defense. Respondent
ruled against the defendant on this issue; the evidence was not suppressed and
was presented to the jury.
4.
On July 9, 2003, the defendant was found guilty.
Immediately following the announcement of the guilty verdict, defense
counsel told reporters at the back of the courtroom that respondent’s
suppression ruling “was flat-out wrong” and cost his client her freedom.
5.
Thereafter, on July 9, 2003, reporters questioned respondent at the
courthouse about the defense attorney’s statement that the suppression ruling
“was flat-out wrong.” Respondent
replied and was quoted in local newspapers as stating, “I’m comfortable with
my decision.” Respondent believed
that his statement was in response to a personal attack on his judicial record,
and therefore permissible under Section 100.5(A)(4)(e) of the Rules Governing
Judicial Conduct (“Rules”) because he was a candidate for public office.
6.
On September 3, 2003, respondent sentenced defendant Christine Wilhelm to
the maximum term allowed, 50 years to life in prison.
Later that day, respondent was shown on several news broadcasts in the
Albany/Rensselaer area, making a statement on the bench during sentencing in
which he said, inter alia, that he had “no room for mercy” for the
defendant.
7.
On September 4, 2003, respondent appeared on the nationally televised
program “Good Morning America.” Excerpts
from the sentencing in the Wilhelm trial were shown, including respondent’s
graphic description of the crime and his statement from the bench that he had
“no room for mercy.” The
following interview occurred and was broadcast:
Interviewer:
I was curious about something you said… I’m curious about what
you meant. Are you saying that
the law required that sentence,
or, having sat through the trial, you feel
no mercy for this woman?
Respondent:
I felt no mercy for her, after listening to the testimony, and the
horror and – that she put Peter through and Luke through – I didn’t
feel as though mercy was – should have been shown in this case.
It was my personal choice.
Interviewer:
When you cover a trial, and as a reporter, I’ve covered many, you
almost sit there and you wonder, “what is the judge thinking,” and this
one obviously got to you.
Respondent:
This was a very emotional trial.
At the end of the day I was physically and emotionally drained. I’ve sat through many murder trials, but this was probably
the worst.
Interviewer:
The defendant in this case tried the insanity defense, which the jury
rejected, but any doubt, in your mind, that she suffers from mental illness?
Respondent:
There’s no doubt, I don’t think in anyone’s mind, that she
suffers from a mental illness, but the issue was did that mental illness
prevent her from knowing the nature and consequences of her act, or that
they were wrong?
Interviewer:
And you’re convinced she knew both – the consequences and that it
was wrong?
Respondent:
Well, it wasn’t my decision. The
jury was convinced that she didn’t meet her burden of proof and in New
York the burden is on the defendant to prove the insanity defense.
Interviewer:
Is there any thought in your mind that perhaps she belongs in a
hospital and not in a jail?
Respondent:
Not based upon the jury verdict.
I have to accept the verdict as it’s delivered, and the law
requires that I treat this defendant the same way I would any other
defendant convicted of a crime.
Interviewer:
But I heard you say earlier, given the fact that you really felt no
mercy, going through the horror of this crime as you watched it, that you
think that jail is the appropriate place for her to be?
Respondent:
I do.
At
the time respondent made the comments set forth in paragraph 7 above, he knew or
should have known that an appeal would likely ensue and that the subjects
discussed could be raised in such an appeal.
Notice of Appeal was
filed in Wilhelm on September 10, 2003.
Upon
the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission concludes as a matter of law that
respondent violated Sections
100.1, 100.2(A) and 100.3(B)(8) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct
and should be disciplined for cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22,
subdivision a, of the New York State Constitution and Section 44, subdivision 1,
of the Judiciary Law.
Charge I of the Formal Written Complaint is sustained insofar as it is
consistent with the above facts, and respondent’s misconduct is established.
It
is improper for a judge to make “any public comment about a pending or
impending proceeding” (Section 100.3[B][8] of the Rules Governing Judicial
Conduct; Matter of McKeon, 1999 Annual Report 117 [Comm. on Judicial
Conduct]). “The rule is clear and unequivocal and makes no
exception…for explanations of a judge’s ‘decision-making process.’” Matter of O’Brien, 2000 Annual Report 135, 137
(Comm. on Judicial Conduct).
Since
the defendant’s appeal of her conviction was likely, respondent’s comments
even after imposing sentence were impermissible and could compromise the proper
administration of justice.
By
reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate
disposition is admonition.
Mr.
Goldman, Judge Ciardullo, Mr. Coffey, Ms. DiPirro, Mr. Emery, Mr. Felder, Judge
Luciano, Judge Peters and Judge Ruderman concur.
Ms.
Hernandez and Mr. Pope were not present.
Dated:
November 12, 2004
