THE MARSHAL: P LEASE R IS E . LAD IES AND GENTLEMEN, T HE F LORIDA SUPREME COURT. P LEASE B E SEA TED.

CHIE F J USTICE: THE N EX T CASE THAT T HE COURT I S G OI NG TO HEAR T HIS M ORNI NG I S INQ UIRY C ON CERN IN G J UDGE GRE GO RY HOL DER. ARE T HE P ARTI ES R EADY ? A LL R IG HT . M R. WEI NSTEIN , THANK Y OU .

MAY I T PLE AS E THE COU RT , MY N AME I S D AV ID W EINS TEIN AND WITH MY CO- COUN SE L I R EPRESENT J UDGE G RE GORY P . H OLDE R W HO IS A C IR CUIT COU RT JUDGE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SPEAK U P A LITTL E BIT.

H E I S A C IR CUIT COU RT J UDGE IN THE 13T H J UD IC IA L C IRCUIT . THIS IS A VERY I MP ORTA NT CASE, YOUR HONOR, N OT JUS T TO JUDGE HOL DE R BUT T O T HE MEN AND WOMEN WHO S ER VE O N B ENCHES ALL A RO UND T HE S TATE .

JUSTICE: C OU LD W E G O INT O, I'VE GOT A R EA L D IR EC T QUE STIO N .

CH IEF JUS TICE: JUDGE WELLS, AS YOU CAN SEE , IS NOT HERE.HE IS R ECUS ED ON THI S C AS E .

TH AN K YOU , YOUR HON OR.

JUSTICE: I R EA LL Y T HI NK WE NEED T O REA LL Y G O D IRECTL Y T O , A ND I T HINK I T IS A P OL IC Y ISS UE , B ECAU SE E VERY T IME WE HAV E A JQC P ROCE EDIN G, I T I S I N C ONNECTIO N W ITH T HE P OSSIBILITY OF SOME KIND O F S ANCTIO N, N O Q UEST ION A BOUT T HAT. SO I T I S REA LL Y THE F IRST E LEMENT T HAT W E H AVE BEE N LOOKING T O AND TAL KING ABO UT , AND T HAT I S W IT H REG AR D T O W HETHER I T NEE DS T O B E S OMET HI NG, S OM E U NDER LY IN G CON DUCT THA T R ELAT ES T O P ER FO RM ANCE O F D UTIE S , O R M OT IV E B ECAUSE YOU A RE REALLY ARGUING M OT IV E IS WHAT YOU ARE A RGUI NG H ER E. T HIS I S M AY BE A L ITTL E C LOSER T HA N S OM E S ITUA TION S . Y OU KNO W , W E COU LD H AV E SOM E V ERY U GL Y C RIMI NA L KIN DS OF T HINGS GOI NG O N , AND I N THA T P ROCE EDING SOM E T HING S C OME U P THAT M AY BE ARE L ES S T HA N A TTRACT IVE BUT A J UDGE B E A CQUI TTED AND S TILL R ES UL T I N S OME JQC A CT IVIT Y. C LEARLY , T HA T WO UL D N OT B E T HE U NDER LY IN G C ON DUCT W OU LD N OT B E R ELAT ED T O YOU R O FFICIAL D UT IES . S O I'M W ON DE RING W HETH ER J UDIC IAL O FF ICERS M AY B E DIF FERENT B ECAUSE T HE P RO CEEDING IS ALW AY S J QC O RIENTE D A ND T HOSE C ASES W E LOOK AT S OM ETIM ES ARE C RIMI NA L PROCEEDINGS OR SOMETHING ELSE , S O I R EA LL Y W OULD LIK E T O GO H EA DL ONG INTO THIS POLIC Y KIND O F THING AND WHERE WE A RE GOING WITH THIS.

I U ND ER STAND T HE QUEST IO N , J USTICE L EWIS . WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND WE COULDN'T AGR EE WITH THE COURT MORE, I S P RONG O NE O F T HE T HORN BE R T EST AND PRO NG ONE R EQ UIRE S T HAT A S UFFI CIEN T NEXUS E XIST B ETWEEN THE P ERFORM ANCE OF O FFICIAL DUT Y AND THE LIT IGAT IO N , AND T HE Q UESTIO N FOR T HE COU RT TOD AY IS H OW CLOSE T HA T N EXUS S HOULD B E , W HA T I S THE NEXUS R EQUIRE MENT IN THE C ON TEXT OF A J QC P RO CE EDIN G AND W HETHER JUDGE H OL DE R H AS S ATISFIED T HE R EQ UI SITE N EXUS UND ER T HE FAC TS O F THI S CA SE. BOTH ARE TRUE HER E. F IRST OF A LL , W IT H RES PECT TO Y OU R QUE ST IO N DIR ECTL Y , YOUR HONOR, AS T O WH ET HER OR N OT THA T SHO UL D B E D IFFE RENT S OMEHOW W ITH R ESPECT T O A J QC P ROCE ED ING C LEAR LY Y ES .

JUSTICE: IT SHOULD BE? YOU T HINK IT S HOULD BE?

BEC AU SE WHEN A JQC P ROSE CU TION BEG IN S , THE JQC I S NEC ESSA RI LY D ET ERMI NE D T HAT THE RE I S SUF FI CIEN T N EXUS BET WEEN THE U ND ERLY IN G C ONDUCT , B E IT PUB LI C C ONDUCT O R PRI VA TE C ON DUCT AND T HE JUD GE'S A BI LITY T O S ERVE . THAT IF THE C HA RG ES ARE P ROSECUTED A ND T HE J UDGE I S CON VICTED T HAT THE JUD GE CAN BE REMOVED F RO M O FFIC E EIT HER TEM PORA RI LY OR P ERMANE NTLY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I HAVE A BAS E Q UEST ION BEFORE W E G ET TO THE TES TS T HA T H AV E B EE N A RGUED B Y BOT H S IDES I S WHE TH ER J QR P RO CEED INGS WHICH ARE G OV ERNE D B Y T HE CONST ITUTION AND W E H AV E T HE HAF NER C AS E A ND THE C ONSTIT UT ION PROVISION S PECI FICALLY ALL OW S FOR C OSTS , W HETH ER B Y EXC LUDI NG A NY P ROVI SION F OR A TTOR NE Y' S F EE S , WHE THER THE RE I S E VE N A CON ST IT UTIO NA L PRO HI BITI ON A GAINST A LL OW IN G ATT OR NEY' S F EE S IN T HE J QC P ROCE EDIN GS .

W E C ER TAIN LY D O N OT B ELIEVE THAT THE O MISS ION O F A TTORNEY'S F EES F ROM THE O MISS IO N I S A N I ND ICIA O F T HE I NTEN T T O E XC LUDE ATT ORNEY F EES F RO M REC OV ERAB ILITY. THE COMMON L AW RIG HT WEL L R ECOGNIZED IN FLO RIDA F OR MANY, MANY YEA RS .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT NEVERHAS IT BEEN RECOGNIZE D IN CON NECTION W ITH J QC P ROCEEDINGS.

THIS IS A C AS E O F FIR ST I MPRE SS IONS IN THI S REGARD.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THE OTHER P RELI MINARY QUESTION I HAVE AND T HIS COURT G ET S I NV OLVE D AT LEAST T HE O FF IC E O F S TATE C OURT ADM INIS TR AT OR WHE N J UDGE S ARE S UE D AND T HE Y ARE D EFIN ITELY IN T HE IR OFF IC IA L C APACITIES , AND T HE ATT ORNE Y G ENER AL CAN 'T R EPRE SENT THE M , AND MAK IN G A DEC ISIO N A S T O W HETHER I T I S IN THE PUB LI C I NTERES T T O H AV E T HA T J UD GE REP RE SENTED, A ND IT IS N OT A P REVA ILING PAR TY SITUATION. IT I S A R IG HT T O HAV E , B ECAUSE YOU ARE PER FO RM ING YOUR OFFICIAL DUT IE S , T O HAV E AN A TTOR NEY. Y OU 'RE NOT SUG GEST ING I N T HIS S IT UATION T HA T A NY T IM E A JUDGE I S C HARG ED O R A RE YOU , WIT H MIS CO NDUC T B ECAU SE T HE M ISCO NDUC T M US T N ECESSA RILY B E CONNE CTED WITH T HE OFF ICIA L D UTIE S T HAT T HE JUD GE HAS A R IGHT T O H AV E H IS O R HER A TT ORNE Y F EES PAI D BY T HE STA TE ?

I 'M S UGGE ST IN G THAT T HI S C OURT H AS T WO A LT ER NATI VE S W IT H RES PECT T O P RONG O NE O F T HE T HO RNBE R C AS E AND T O PUT THI S I N CON TEXT .

CHIE F JUSTICE: WELL , C AN YOU ANSWER THAT?

W E THI NK, YO UR H ONOR , T HAT THE B ETTE R R UL E F OR T HIS COU RT T O A DO PT WOU LD B E T HAT W HE NE VE R THE JQC C HARGES C ON DUCT WHI CH A S P ART A ND PAR CE L O F T HE CHA RGES THE J QC ALL EG ES THA T T HE UND ER LYIN G CON DUCT , W HETHER P UB LIC O R PRI VATE , REN DE RS THE J UDGE U NFIT T O S ERVE, THA T T HE R EQUI SITE N EXUS B ETWEEN H IS O R H ER P ERFORM ANCE O F OFF IC IA L D UTIE S AND T HE LIT IG ATIO N I S M ET. N ECESSARI LY.

CH IEF JUSTICE: WELL , THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN IT WOULD NOT BE PRE VA IL IN G P ARTY. IT WOU LD N' T MAT TE R W HETH ER T HE J UD GE - - W HY ARE Y OU M AKIN G IN YOU R B RIEF S UC H A N ARG UMENT A BOUT H OW T HI S W HOLE COM PLAI NT C AM E A BO UT B ECAUSE O F H IS INT ER FERE NC E W ITH AN ONG OI NG I NVESTIGA TION O R A TTEM PT T O D ISCR ED IT HIM? IT WOULDN'T M ATTER UNDER THAT SCENARIO , I T W OU LD JUS T BE T HA T A J UDGE S HOUL D H AV E T HE N IF T HA T'S W HA T T HE Y T HOUGHT REQ UEST ED T HE S TA TE T O PRO VI DE T HE M WIT H A N ATT ORNEY.

RIGHT. I T W OU LD NOT MAT TE R WHA T T HE M OTIV E O F THE A CCUS ATIO N W AS , P ROVIDED THAT T HE J UD GE W AS C HARG ED WITH SOM ETHING THAT R EFLECTED O N U NFIT NESS T O SER VE A ND I MP ORTANT LY , YOUR H ONORS , T HA T THA T J UD GE U LTIM AT ELY PRE VAIL ED AND A S WE S TA TE D .

CHIE F JUSTICE: I W ANT T O M AK E S UR E YOU G ET BAC K.

JUSTI CE: I THINK YOU A RE T YING I T I N.

AND PUT T HI S I N PRO PE R C ONTE XT AS W E S AID I N O UR BRIEFS BAS ED U PO N OUR RESEARC H FIRST OF A LL THI S IS THE FIRST C AS E O F THI S NATURE EVER T O C OM E B EF OR E THIS COURT, AND , T WO , I T H AS B EEN A T L EA ST 2 0 Y EARS S IN CE THE L AS T TIM E A J UD GE P REVAILED I N A J QC P ROCEEDIN G.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT YOU JUST SAID IT DID N' T M AT TER IF THEY PRE VA IL ED .

I M ISUN DERS TO OD YOU R Q UESTIO N T HE N C HI EF JUS TI CE. I BELIEVE I T DOE S M AT TE R UNDER THE T HORN BE R TES T THA T T HE J UDGE M US T P RE VAIL .

CHIE F J USTICE: W HY ? I F I T COM ES O UT O F T HE ONL Y R EASON A J UD GE CAN B E C HARGED . L ET'S SAY THI S IS A SITUATION WHERE T HERE WAS AN A CCUS ATION THAT THEY HAD IMP ROPER EX- PART E C OMMUNI CA TIONS ABO UT A N O NGOING CAS E CLE AR LY U NDER O FFICIAL D UT IES UNDER T HE D OCTRINE I T DOE SN 'T M ATTER THE WAY I READ T HI S DOC TR IN E W HETHER Y OU H AV E P RE VA ILED O R N OT T HE I DE A I S T HA T Y OU A RE O NL Y B EING C HA RGED B EC AUSE OF Y OU R CON NE CTIO N W ITH Y OUR OFF IC IA L D UT IES.

I UND ERST AN D T HE Q UESTION. I AM NOT SUR E I 'M A WA RE O F A D ECIS IO N UNDER THE T HORNBE R D OCTRIN E , H OW EVER , WHE RE S OM EONE HAS SUC CESS FU LL Y R ECOV ER ED F EE S UNL ES S T HE Y P REVAIL. IT JUST H AS N OT C ERTA INLY I T I S POS SIBL E WE'VE MIS SE D A CASE BUT NON E O F THE ONE S THAT I AM AWARE O F , YO UR H ONOR S, I S A CAS E W HERE A J UDGE H AS N OT P RE VA ILED .

JUS TICE : BUT I T DOE S LOO K L IKE SUR VE YI NG T HE L AW I N T RYIN G TO L OOK A T THE SE T HE RE ARE A F EW W IL D C AR DS OUT THERE BUT I N M OS T I NSTANCES I T HAS B EE N W HERE S OMET HING A RI SING OUT O F A VOT E O N A C IT Y C OUNC IL O R S OMETHING L IK E THA T , THA T T HERE I S W E T AL K A BO UT N OT O NLY A N EXUS BUT I MEA N I T I S REALL Y D IREC TL Y T HE Y D ID S OMETHING IN THEIR O FFICE AND S OMEBODY GOT A NG RY A BOUT IT, AND THE Y T RIED T O G ET THEM OUT OF O FFIC E.

R IGHT .

J US TICE : S O T HAT' S W HERE I'M NOT SURE THA T W E HAVE , I'M TRYING T O S EE W HERE W E G ET O UR H AN DS A RO UN D T HI S T HING .

I THINK THAT'S THE HEA RT OF THE QUESTION, JUDGE , A ND IN E ITHE R S ITUA TI ON WHETHEROR NOT FOR EXAMPLE T HE CHA RGED C ON DUCT IS T HA T A JUD GE F IXED A C AS E O R HAD AN I MPRO PE R E X- PART E C OMMUNI CATION OR S OMETHING THAT WOULD B E D ENOM IN AT ED A S O FFICIA L CON DUCT O R WHE THER ON THE OTHER HAND THE ALL EGATIO N I S THAT A J UDGE H AS A N A LC OHOL O R D RU G O R SOM E OTH ER KIND O F A P ROBL EM , WHI CH THE JQC D ECID ES T O E XERCISE I TS J URIS DI CTIO N A ND ASS ER T T HA T WHATE VE R THE C ONDUCT I S REN DE RS A JUD GE U NFIT , T HE N WHA T' S A T I SSUE W ITH THE L ITIG AT ION I S E XACTLY T HE SAM E AN D T HA T I SSUE I S WH ET HE R OR NOT T HA T JUDGE IS F IT T O S ER VE T HE PEO PL E O F HIS O R H ER - -.

J US TICE : I T IS NOT SEEKING REMOVAL F RO M OFF ICE , JUST S EEKI NG P UB LI C R EPRIMA ND O R SUS PE NS ION BUT NOT REMOVAL FRO M OFF ICE?

I DON 'T THI NK , J USTI CE C ANTERO, T HA T THA T M AK ES A D IFFERENCE. I THI NK THE PRI NC IP LE THA T H AS T O B E V IN D I ND ICAT ED H ERE IS T HA T T HE J QC I S E XERCIS ING I TS J UR IS DICT IO N B ECAUSE I T BEL IE VE S THA T C ONDUCT ADV ER SE LY A FF ECTS T HE J UD GE'S A BILI TY T O S ERVE.

JUSTICE: SO Y OUR POS ITION IS THAT A JUDGE SHO ULD B E R EIMB UR SED FOR A TT ORNE YS FEE S WHE NEVER T HE JQC INS TITUTES A NY P ROCE EDIN GS PER IOD?

A ND T HA T J UDGE PRE VA IL S A ND IF THA T I SN'T THE L AW T HAT WHAT T HE MES SA GE W E A RE UNF OR TUNA TELY S ENDING I S T HA T SOMEONE W HO ACC US ES A J UD GE A ND A FF ECTS WHE TH ER O R NOT THAT JUDGE H AS A P OSSI BILI TY O F R EIMB UR SEME NT B Y W HI CH ALL EGAT IO N , W HICH F ALSE A LLEG ATION T HE Y M IG HT M AKE , A ND S O I F S OMEO NE --.

J USTICE: B UT THE JQC C ONDUCT S SOM E P RELI MINA RY I NVESTIGATION BEFORE THE Y F IND P ROBABLE CAUSE. SOM EBODY C AN'T JUS T A CCUS E SOM EBODY OF G ETTI NG A RR ESTED FOR D UI , A ND T HE N THE J QC AUT OM ATICALLY I NS TITU TE S PROCEEDINGS.THE J QC C ONDU CT S A N I NVESTI GATI ON FIRST.

THE J QC CON DUCT S A P ROBA BLE C AUSE INVESTIGATION.O BVIOUSLY I'M N OT I N A P OSITION TO S PEAK W HA T H APPENS B EH IN D C LO SED D OO RS A ND HOW F AR THA T I S, BUT I W OULD SUGGE ST TWO THI NG S WITH RESPECT TO THIS D OCTR INE R ESPE CT FULLY. ON THE O NE H AN D , ELI MI NATE !!IN G THE DISTINCTI ON BET WEEN PUBLIC AND P RI VATE C ONDU CT E LIMINA TE S T HE P OSSI BILI TY THA T SOMEONE W ILL SEEK T O R EMOVE A J UD GE I N A C ONTROV ERSIAL C ASE B Y S IMPL Y M AKIN G A S W AS IN T HI S C AS E A NONYMOUS A CCUS ATIO N T HROU GH A N U NSIG NED NO TE AND A PLA IN M ANILA E NV ELOP E S LIPP ED U NDER T HE DOO R K NOWI NG A S LONG AS T HE A LLEG AT IO N I S OF P URPO RTEDLY PRIVATE C ONDUCT THAT JUDGE HAS NO R IGHT TO A TTORNEYS FEE S.

CH IE F J US TICE: Y OU'RE ASSUMING WE'VE ALREADY AGREED THAT IF T HI S W AS W HILE T HEY WERE ON T HE B ENCH THAT THEY W OULD HAVE A RIG HT T O A TTOR NE YS F EES A ND I 'M N OT S UR E T HA T T HA T W E HAV E N OT E VE N EST AB LISH ED T HA T E VEN, Y OU KNO W , I 'M N OT S UR E I F J QC C ON CE DE S THA T B ECAU SE I THINK T HA T AGA IN , Y OU K NO W , I 'M M OR E S YM PATH ETIC T O Y OU R I DEA OF T RYIN G T O F IGUR E OUT THI S PUB LI C P RI VA TE I S A SLI PP ERY SLOPE BUT , A GA IN , Y OU H AVEN 'T REA LL Y RES PO ND ED T O J US TICE C AN TERO . Y OU S AID ANY ON E CAN D O THI S , BUT THERE I S A N I NVESTI GATIVE ARM OF T HE J QC THA T I S T AK ES M AN Y , M AN Y C ASES AND D OESN 'T T AK E THE M PAST THE STA GE O F THE P ROBABL E C AUSE. S O Y OU A RE N OT , A RE Y OU A SSERTI NG BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE J QC I N P ROSE CUTING T HI S CASE?

I'M NOT A SSER TING B AD F AITH, YOUR H ONOR, BUT W HAT I A M ASS ERTI NG I S THA T I N S TATE A TTOR NE YS OFF IC ES AND U.S . A TTOR NE YS O FF ICES A CROS S THE S TATE A ND ACR OS S THE COUNTRY EVE RY DAY P ROSECUTORS A RE F ACED IN THE E XERCISE O F T HEIR D ISCR ETIO N WITH A DECISION AS T O N OT JUS T WHETHER OR NOT C HARG ES A RE FAC IA LL Y S UFFI CI EN T B UT W HE THER OR N OT T HO SE C HA RGES CAN BE PRO VE N T O THE VER Y H IGH S TAND AR D THA T THE Y A RE H EL D TO.

JUSTI CE : LET M E A SK Y OU THIS. W HAT I F S OMEB OD Y FILES A C OMPLAINT W IT H THE S TATE A TT OR NEYS OFFICE A BOUT A J UD GE AND THE J UDGE G ET S C HARGED C RI MINA LL Y WIT H S OMET HING I S T HE J UD GE NOW E NTIT LED T O AN A TTORNEY IN T HE C RIMI NA L PRO CE ED IN G S INCE A C ONVI CT ION I N THOSE P ROCEED INGS CAN RESULT I N J QC PROCE EDINGS?

THA T I S A GOO D Q UE STIO N , J UDGE . IT IS NOT O NE T HA T I S FRA ME D BY THE ISS UE S I N T HI S CAS E . > > J USTI CE : W HE N W E ARE D EVEL OP IN G A R ULE AND YOU WANT US T O EXP AN D T HO RN BE R I T HINK W E NEE D T O KEEP I N M IND WHAT THE C ON SEQU EN CE S OF THAT E XP ANSI ON W OULD B E.

AND I U NDER ST AND THAT. B Y THE TIM E , I F Y OU L OO K A T T HI S A S A M AT RI X , P RI VATE C ONDUCT , P RI VA TE L ITIG ATIO N , B ASED UPON THE LAW O F THE C OMMO N LAW O F T HE STATE OF FLORIDA AS WE UNDERSTAND I T WOULD N OT G IV E RIS E T O R ESULTING A TTOR NEYS FEE S.

J USTI CE : I 'M N OT T ALKI NG A BOUT PRIVATE L ITIG AT IO N. I 'M TAL KING ABO UT CRI MI NA L C HARGES . I 'M TALKI NG ABO UT S OMEBODY WHO GOES TO THE S TATE ATT ORNEYS OFFICE A ND G ET S S OMEBOD Y CHA RGED WITH DRIVING UNDER THE I NFLU ENCE O R W IT H F EL ON Y B ATTE RY .

I THI NK W HAT I S M ISSI NG F ROM THA T S CENA RI O , YO UR HONOR, IS THE N EXUS T O O FFICIAL DUTY. THERE IS NOT HING IN THA T S CENA RI O I N W HI CH T HE J QC OR AN YB ODY ELSE I S A SS ER TING THAT THAT C ONDU CT A DV ERSE LY A FFECTS A J UD GE 'S A BI LITY T O S ERVE A ND OUR CON CERN HER E A MONG O TH ER S I S T HA T T HE I NDEPENDENT J UDICIARY IS U NDERMI NED B Y A P ROPO SITI ON THAT J UST B Y M AKIN G A N A CCUS ATION THAT S OM EBOD Y C AN P UT A J UDGE I N A POS ITIO N O F E ITHE R H AV IN G T HE C HOIC E O F H AVING T O D ECIDE T O R ES IG N OR F AC E R EMOV AL .

CHIEF J US TI CE : S O WOU LD YOU A LSO E XTEND I T T O T HOSE C ASES WHERE THE J UDGE HIR ED A N A TTOR NE Y A T T HE I NITI AL S TAGE W HE N T HE JQC TEL LS T HE M T HA T T HE RE A RE CHA RG ES T HA T HAV E B EE N F ILED AND T HE JQC DEC ID ES NOT T O G O FAR THER A ND N OT T O FIN D PRO BA BL E CAUSE ? W OULD THERE BE A R IGHT T O A TTORNEYS FEES I N T HAT CASE?

NO.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHY NOT?

B ECAU SE A T T HA T P OINT THE J QC I S STI LL INVES TIGA TING , E XERCISING I TS DIS CR ETION SAME AS A PRO SECU TO R W OULD BE. IT I S O NL Y W E T HI NK WHE N THE JQC DEC IDES T O G O FOR WA RD A ND NOW THE A LLEG AT IO N BEC OMES P UB LI C A ND THE J UD GE I S PUT I N A GA IN I N T HA T P OSIT ION. DO I D EF EN D C HARG ES I B ELIEVE A RE MER ITLE SS A ND R IS K FIN AN CIAL RUIN OR D O I , Y OU K NO W , O R D O I CAV E T O T HOSE C HARG ES K NOWI NG I H AV E N O ABI LITY T O REC OVER FEE S A ND I WOU LD RES PE CTFULL Y SUGGEST THAT JUDGES SERVE THE PEOPLE OF T HIS S TATE A T L EVEL S O F COM PE NSAT ION THAT ARE FAR BEL OW THE PRI VA TE S ECTOR AND I N M AN Y , MAN Y I NSTANC ES I F J UDGE S A RE U NABL E T O R EC OV ER A TTOR NE YS F EE S T HE Y W IL L SIM PL Y N OT H AVE THE W HERE WI THAL T O D EFEN D THEMSELVES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: HOW MUC H ARE THE ATTORNEYS FEE S BEI NG C LAIMED?

THEY ARE IN EXC ESS OF A M ILLI ON DOLLARS IN T HI S CASE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS D ISCU SS IO N , W E AR E N OT T O CON SIDE R WHETHER T HE AMOUN T I S REASONABLE OR N OT?

NO , WHA T WE H AV E ASK ED I S THAT YOU REFER THI S T O A SPE CIAL MAS TE R T O DETER MI NE REA SONABI LITY.

JUSTICE: I T HI NK Y OU 'V E O UTLINE D THE PAR AMET ER S O F W HERE YOU ARE GOI NG W HERE THERE IS A J QC P RO CEED IN G AND THE J UD IC IA L OFF IC ER P REVAIL S , THA T' S R EALLY WHAT YOU ARE T ALKING ABOUT. YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CRIMINAL LIT IG ATION , PRIVATE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WOULD Y OU T HE N D IREC T Y OU R A TTENTI ON TO THE CHI EF J USTICE'S QUESTION A S T O T HIS CON ST ITUT IONAL PROVISION AND THE U ND ER LYIN G POLICY? I THINK YOU HAV E SAT IS FIED U S PRETTY M UCH A S TO WHE RE THE PAR AM ETER S T AK E U S BUT L ET'S G O T O THE F OU NDAT IO N , IF YOU WOULD , PLE ASE.

YES, SIR. A GAIN WIT H R ESPECT T O T HE C ONSTIT UTIONA L P ROHIBITION WE JUST DON'T S EE THA T T HE A BSENCE OF THE ATT OR NE YS F EE S NEC ESSA RI LY I S A N I NT ENT THAT A J UDGE C AN NEV ER R ECOVER COS TS , A ND WE' VE G OT SIT UA TION S W HE RE T HOSE T YP ES O F T HING S C OEXIST ELS E WHER E A MI CA BL Y I F YOU W IL L .

JUS TICE : THE NEX US I T HINK THE C HIEF W AS REFERRING TO AS WELL IS THERE ARE REA L PRA CTIC ALIT IES INVOLVED HER E A ND W HE THER T HE F UN DING F OR T HESE THINGS IT IS NOT F UNDED WITH GEN ER AL R EV EN UE L IK E YOU CAN G O T O T HE LEG ISLATURE ON OTHER K INDS O F THI NGS. T HIS I S A P RA CTIC AL A PP RO ACH AS WELL.

R IGHT .

J USTI CE : THAT A LTHO UG H I T M AY FLO W T HROU GH THE STA TE COURT A DM IN IS TR ATORS , T HE RE IS NOT A POT OF M ON EY YOU CAN K EEP GOING BACK T O T O F UND T HESE THI NG S . W HAT IS T HE A NS WER T O T HA T?

THE A NSWE R I S A S W E S UGGESTED THA T T HI S COU RT I N T HESE R ARE INS TA NC ES W HE N A N A WARD I S APP ROPRIA TE WOU LD DIREC T THE OFFICE O F S TA TE C OURT ADM IN ISTR ATOR , O F C OURS E , O PERA TE S UND ER THE S UPER VI SION OF T HI S COU RT T O R EQUEST THOSE FUN DS FRO M THE L EGIS LA TURE, W HO W OULD T HE N B E, I T HI NK , A L EG ISLA TIVE B RANCH.

J USTI CE: J US T LIK E A TOR T C LA IM ?

A S TO WHET HER OR N OT T HA T T HE L EGISLA TU RE DEE MED I T A PPROPRIATE TO A PP ROPR IA TE THOSE FUNDS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THEY WOULDHAVE TO DECIDE W HICH I S , A GAIN, THE P OLIC Y I SSUE T HA T W E A RE LOO KI NG A T , AND I F IND THI S D OC TRIN E FAS CINATING L OOKI NG A T T HE L UMELLO C AS E I N THE CIT Y O F S UNRISE , H AV IN G BEE N D OW N T HERE D URING THAT P ER IOD I HAV E ACQUA INTA NC E WITH T HAT , IS T HA T P UB LIC F UNDS M AY ONLY BE EXPEN DE D F OR A P UBLI C PUR PO SE AND T HA T' S WHERE I THINK WE G ET BAC K T O Y OUR M UC H B ROAD ER V IE W THA T A P UB LI C P UR PO SE I S S ATISFIED BEC AU SE THE J QC H AS C HA RG ED T HE JUD GE W IT H C ONDU CT T HA T H AS A SUF FI CIENT N EX US A ND T HAT' S A GAIN YOU DON'T G O F ARTH ER I N D ETER MINI NG W HETH ER T HI S REALLY WOU LD SER VE A PUB LI C P URPOSE I N A BRO ADER S EN SE ?

I W OU LD RES PE CTFU LLY DISAGREE, J US TI CE PAR IENT E. W E THI NK , W E BEL IEVE STR ONGLY THAT A P UBLI C PURPOSE IS SERVE D BY THE E XPEN DITURE OF FUNDS I N T HI S C ASE , B ECAU SE IT PRO TECT S A C OUPLE OF VER Y F UNDA ME NT AL AND V ER Y IMP OR TANT P RI NCIP LE N S T HI S S TA TE AND O NE I S T HE I NDEPENDE NC E OF T HE J UD ICIARY. THAT A J UD GE S HOULD NOT B E T AKEN DOW N , I F YOU WIL L , T AKEN OUT OF A CON TROV ER SIAL C AS E BAS ED U PO N O N A NONY MO US A CCUSAT ION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU KEE P GOING B ACK T O THA T A S I F THE J QC D OE SN 'T H AV E A V ER Y , V ERY CAR EF UL P RO CESS F OR W EEDING T HR OUGH T HE CAS ES T HAT H AV E N O MER IT FRO M THO SE T HA T A PPEAR T O H AV E MERIT , AND YOU ARE ALS O F ORGETTING T HA T A LT HOUG H YOU R CLI EN T W AS F OU ND N OT T O B E C LE AR A ND C ON VINCIN G EVIDENCE, THERE A RE S TATEME NT S BY T HE JQC THA T I NDICAT E THEY H AD S ER IOUS C ONCERNS ABOUT W HE THER THE RE , I N FA CT , H AD BEE N I MPROPR IETY . D O Y OU D EN Y THA T?

I T HINK THA T THE FIN AL O RDER CAN B E REA D A N UMBE R O F WAY S , B UT I A LS O THI NK T HAT WHEN YOU L OO K AT THE T RANS RIP T O F T HI S - - T RANSCRIP T OF THI S TRI AL A S A WHO LE T HE E VIDE NC E WAS O VERW HELMING.

JUSTI CE: W E D ON 'T HAVE A T RANSCRIPT OF THE E NTIR E T RIAL. WE HAVE QUO TES , R EA LL Y .

CHIE F JUS TICE : J US TICE BELL HAS A QUESTION AND THE N Y OU ARE V ER Y CLO SE T O OUT O F T IME.

I WAN T T O G ET O N A PARAL LEL TRACK. THE PROCESS HERE I N T HE JQC I S SIM IL AR T O THE PRO CE SSES UNDER 112 FOR ELE CT ED O FFICIALS A ND P UBLIC OFFICIALS IN OTHER W AY S WHE RE THE G OVERNOR C AN R EMOVE PEO PL E O R ARE R EFERRED TO T HE HOU SE AND THE S ENATE AND A WHO LE P ROCE SS SET I N THE RE. IN THA T C IRCU MS TA NC E , ARE A TTOR NEYS F EE S A LLOW ED T O P UBLIC O FF IC IA LS SIM IL ARLY E LECTED P UBLIC OFF IC IALS O R APP OINTED O FF ICIALS?.

I'M SOR RY , J US TI CE B EL L , I D ON 'T K NO W THE A NS WE R T O T HAT.

CHIEF J USTICE: YOU HAV E ABOUT A H ALF A MINUTE OF YOU M IGHT WAN T T O S AV E I T FOR R EBUTTAL.

THANK Y OU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT YOU C AN USE I T U P.

I WILL SAV E I T FOR R EBUTTA L. T HANK Y OU .

CHIE F J USTICE: I'LL GIV E YOU ANOTHER MIN UT E .

M AY IT P LEAS E THE C OU RT , M Y NAME I S C HA RL ES P ILLA NS . I WAS S PE CIAL C OU NSEL T O T HE C OMMISS ION IN T HE INV ESTIGA TIVE H EARING B EL OW , A ND I R EP RE SE NT , O F C OURS E , T HE C OM MISS ION. T HE COURT I N A RGUI NG O R I N SET TING U P T HE O RA L ARG UM EN T IN THI S CAS E PUT PRI NCIP LE O NE B EING THE ONE THA T H E D EVOT ED H IS TIM E T O W AS S PECIFI C AUT HORITY FOR THE A WA RD O F ATT ORNEY FEE S I N THIS CASE. N OW , W HA T I R EA D I N THE BRIEF AND T HE ARG UM EN T WHICH A LB EI T P ROMP TE D B Y THE QUE ST IONS FRO M P RIMA RI LY JUSTI CE L EW IS , W HA T I H EA R FROM THE RESPO ND EN T I S A MUCH B RO ADER ARG UMEN T A ND A D IFFERE NT C ON CEPT THA N THE ONE THAT WAS B RIEF ED I N THE CASE IN W HICH W E F OCUS ED P RIMARI LY ON T HE Q UESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THESE P AR TICULAR C HARG ES AND THE I SSUE S L IT IG ATED I N THE H EARING A ROSE O UT O F - -.

JUSTI CE: I T HINK I N F AIRN ESS AS A W HOLE TO T HE ARGUMENT THAT'S R EALLY WHERE THEY WERE H EADING WITH T HI S BECAUSE T HEY K EP T T AL KING ABOUT MOTIVATION F OR IT. S O IF Y OU C OULD ADD RESS T HOSE S AME A RG UMENTS I W OU LD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU W OULD.

W HA T I W AS P OI NT IN G O UT T HAT'S N OT E XA CTLY WHE RE W E W ENT I NT O T HI S. I T HINK WHA T I H EA R A RG UE D N OW I S A MUCH B ROAD ER P RINCIPLE THAN T HE O NE THA T W AS A DD RESS ED .

CHIEF JUSTICE: DO YOU OF COURSE CONCEDING S OM ETHING THAT MIGHT NOT THE J QC M AY O R MAY NOT H AV E THE A BI LITY T O C ONCE DE , BUT T HA T T HE D OCTRIN E , THE T HO RN BE R D OCTR IN E A PPLI ES TO J QC P ROCE ED INGS? DOES THE J QC AGR EE T HA T I T DOE S?

WE DO. T HE SECON D Q UE ST ION T HAT W AS ASKED O F US WAS W HETH ER S OVER EIGN I MM UNIT Y OVE RRID ES.

CHIE F JUS TICE : YES B UT A B ET TE R Q UEST IO N I S D OE S THE C ONSTIT UTIONAL PROVISION THAT SETS UP THE JQC P ROHIBI T O R P ERMI T O R --

I THI NK T HA T O BVIO US LY I H AVEN'T P UT T HI S TO THE COMMISSION. I 'M S IM PL Y T HE L AW YER I N THIS PARTICULAR CASE BUT I THI NK T HAT THE PRI NCIP LE FIR ST O F THI S CON ST ITUT IO NA L P ROVISI ON DOES NOT M AKE T HE PRO VISION F OR I T T O B E CON SIDERE D A ND TO B E CON TROL LE D AND W HEN YOU P UT THAT UP AGA IN ST THE S OVEREI GN IMM UN IT Y R UL E W HICH WAS I NVOL VED W HI CH W AS T HE S ECOND Q UESTION A S T O WH ETHER OR NOT T HI S C OU RT , A ND I DEA L WIT H T HAT I N M Y B RIEF WHE TH ER T HO RNBE R R EALL Y R UN S A FO UL T HE S OVEREI GN I MM UN ITY AND T HE S EPARATION OF POW ER S SUC H T HAT I T REA LL Y I S A L ONG- STANDING CON ST ITUT IO NA L P ROVISI ON T HA T P RE CEDED T HE 196 8 C ON ST ITUT ION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: B UT THEIR IDEA IS W E S AY F EE S SHO UL D B E A WA RD ED , LET 'S J US T S AY W E SAY IT , W E D ON 'T H AV E T HE P OWER , S O W E P UT I T B ACK TO T HE L EGISLA TURE AND THEN I N THAT WAY THE JQC R EALL Y W OULD N'T H AVE A N I NT ERES T I F T HE LEG IS LA TURE SAI D P REVA IL IN G PARTIES I N A J QC P ROCEEDIN G GET A TT OR NEYS F EES , I MEA N JUS T F RO M A P RACT IC AL POINT I M EA N WHAT'S THE DOW NS ID E T O T HA T A RG UMEN T? THAT IS T HA T WE D ON 'T MAK E T HE DEC ISION. W E MADE A D EC IS IO N T HI S I S P UBLIC PUR POSE . THIS IS JQC B UT I T I S REA LL Y U P T O THE L EGISLATURE TO DECIDE W HE THER T O PAY T HE F EES. I'M NOT SUR E I F T HA T'S G OOD OR BAD ACT UALL Y AS I S AY IT , B EC AUSE , Y OU K NO W , W HAT I F T HEY SAY I N THI S C AS E YES , IN THIS C AS E NO.

W ELL , SEV ERAL THO UG HT S C OME TO M IND. ONE I S I D ON'T L IK E T HE IDE A OR T HE T HO UG HT O F T HE SE C ASES BEI NG R ET RIED I N THE L EGISLATU RE O N THE QUE STION O F W HETH ER O R N OT T HERE SHOULD BE ENT ITLE MENT OF F EE S AND W HA T I S T HE ROL E W ITH RE SPECT T O THAT. I B ELIE VE I T I S THE H AF NE R C AS E AND THE C OURT SAI D C OSTS S HO ULD BE K EP T WIT HI N R EASON NOT ONL Y FOR T HE B ENEF IT O F THE JUD GE T HAT' S I N ISSUE BUT A LS O F OR T HE C OMMISSIO N , A ND I J US T T HI NK T HA T I S T HE SLI PP ER Y SLO PE .

CHIEF JUS TICE: LET'S GO BACK TO , T HOUG H , THE ISS UE O NE. HAVE YOU, AND I JUS T WAN T T O , O R HAS THE J QC ACC EPTE D T HE N OR N OT THAT THE T HORN BE R D OCTR INE W OULD APPLY TO JQC P ROCEED INGS?

W E HAD ACC EPTE D THA T. THA T WAS T HE P OS IT IO N I T OO K I N T HE BRIEF .

CHIE F JUSTICE: SO THEN I T SEEMS TO M E T HA T THE D ISTINC TION B ETWE EN S OMEB OD Y THAT MAY BE C HA RGED WIT H P LAGIAR IS M A ND A N A CT IVIT Y T HA T I S N OT D IR ECTL Y REL ATED T O T HE IR O FFIC IA L D UTIE S BUT IS O F S UF FICI EN T C ON CERN THAT IT WOULD AFFEC T THE IR ABILITY TO S ER VE , V ERSU S A S ITUA TION WHERE A J UDGE I S C HARG ED W IT H H AV IN G BEE N C HARGED W ITH H AV ING ENGAG ED I N I MPRO PE R P RITS O N A N E X-PA RTE B AS IS AS W E H AD YESTERDAY WIT H A JUDGE WHO HAD A R EL ATIO NS HI P W IT H A W OMAN W HO W AS A PP EARING B EFOR E H IM , H OW WOU LD T HAT SERVE A PUB LI C PURPO SE TO S AY , WEL L , WE WIL L G IV E F EE S W HEN THEY ARE A ND T HE CONDUCT MIGHT BE WORSE, Y OU K NOW , THA T I F I T I S CHA RG ED I N C ON NECT IO N WIT H THE D UTIES ON T HE BEN CH B UT I F IT I S O FF T HE BEN CH BUT W E S TILL T HINK I T I S S UF FICIENTLY C ONNECTED W E ARE NOT . I 'M VERY U NCOM FO RT ABLE W IT H THA T PAR AD IG M , AND C OU LD YOU H ELP M E , COU LD Y OU GIV E M E T HE B EST A RG UMEN T FOR W HY ONE WOULD A LL OW FEE S A ND T HE OTH ER W OU LD N' T ?

W EL L , I T HINK Y OU G O BAC K T O T HE ORI GI NA L P RINC IPLE O F T HORNBER AN D T HA T I S THA T I T I S THE INT ER EST OF T HE S TATE TO P ROTECT ALL O F T HE P UB LI C , N OT JUST J UDGE S WHE N T HE Y A RE A TTAC KE D O R WHE N T HE Y H AVE T O DEF EN D THI NG S T HEY HAVE DONE I N THE IR O FFIC IA L C AP AC ITY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THAT WOULD BE , AGAIN, I SEE T HA T D IFFERENT LY. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD T HE JUDGE THAT WAS ATT AC KE D V ER BALLY A ND WIT H T HREA TS FOR T HE SCH IAVO C AS E , AND J US T LET 'S S AY T HA T H E HAD BEEN S UE D B Y S OMEB ODY. N OBODY IS E VE R SUG GEST IN G T HAT I F H IS C HI EF JUD GE I S C ALLE D U P T O T HE OFF IC E O F S TATE C OU RT ADM INIS TR ATOR T O G ET AN ATTOR NE Y T O R EPRE SE NT H IM T HA T W E W OULD N' T HAV E P ROVI DED IT. W E P RO VIDE A TTOR NE YS F OR J UDGE S SUE D I N T HE IR O FF ICIA L CAPACITY ALL OF THE T IME WHE N I T I S C LE ARLY THERE. I 'M HAVING T ROUBLE WIT H TAKING IT TO THE N EX T S TE P T HAT WHEN THE J UD GE I S C HARGED N OW WITH A C ONTROV ERSIAL RUL IN G , B UT W IT H M ISCO NDUC T , HOW THA T I S S ERVING A PUB LIC PUR POSE T O R EIMBURSE A TTOR NE YS FEE S W HEN TH E J QC D OE SN 'T E STABLI SH C LEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE B UTW HERE THERE IS N O EVI DE NC E OF BAD F AITH O N T HE P AR T O F T HE J QC W IT H M AK IN G T HA T D ISTINCTION THAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO MAK E H ER E T HA T O NE WAS D ON E OFF T HE BEN CH A ND THE OTH ER W AS D ON E O N THE BENCH .

THA T I S THE D IS TINC TION T HAT T HO RN BE R MAK ES , A ND Y OU R H ONOR A SKED I F THE COM MISSION T OOK T HE P OSIT IO N THAT THO RN BE R A PP LI ED A ND THE POS IT ION WAS I T A PPLI ED B UT IT A PP LIED I N THA T C IRCUMSTA NC E W HERE T HE A CT IVIT Y INVOLVED THE J UDGE'S O FFICIAL D UTIE S. Y OU ARE S UGGE STIN G A B ROAD ER A PPLICATION O F THO RN BE R W HICH T HO RN BE R - -.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THEY ARE OFFERING IT AND I'M THI NK IN G F RO M A P UBLI C P URPO SE A RGUM ENT THAT I FEE L U NCOM FORTABLE WIT H T HA T DIC HOTOMY.

WHA T I WAS GOI NG T O S UGGE ST I S W HA T THE Y ARE ASKING FOR I S A P UB LI C D EFENDE R SYSTEM FOR J UDGES IN ASKING THE J UD GE S A LTHO UGH W E ALL W IT H R ES PECT TO THE J UDIC IA RY A RE T O B E PUT IN A S EP ARAT E C ATEG OR Y A PART A ND D ISTI NC T FRO M O THER P UBLI C O FF ICIALS W HO MAY COME BEFORE THE SPE CIAL E THIC S COM MI SSIO N.

CHIE F JUSTICE: I F T HE Y P REVAIL I N A NY O F T HOSE OTH ER SET TING S , D O W E KNO W T HE L AW A S T O O TH ER O FFIC IALS ?.

WE H AV E FOR E XA MP LE THE CHAVE Z V ER SU S THE CIT Y O F T AMPA W HICH WAS A C IT Y C OUNC ILWO MA N WHO V OTED O N A R ECLASSIFIC ATION IN A Z ON IN G MATTER AND THAT W AS A N O FFICIA L ACT , BUT T HE R ECLA SS IFICATION RELATED TO H ER BUSINESS WHICH W AS A R ESTAURANT AND SO IT WAS FOUND THAT T HE V OT E W AS NOT S ERVING T HE PUB LI C PUR PO SE . S O THERE I S A N EXA MP LE O F W HE RE THE ISS UE C AM E U P AND T HE CER T W AS A PPLI ED F OR .

CHIEF J US TICE: HAV ING READ ALL OF THO SE C AS ES I 'M V ERY U NC OMFO RT ABLE WIT H THE DISTINCTIONS THAT ARE M AD E A ND I J US T I U ND ERST AN D THE U NDER LY ING PRI NC IP LE O F THE CAS ES B UT I 'M S TI LL NOT SUR E I'V E G OTTE N ONE W HI CH S AY S T HAT H ER E I T WOULD REQ UI RE A J UDGE H OLDE R T O EST AB LISH T HAT T HE R EA SO N , THE M OTIVATION FOR THE I MPRO PE R C HARGE, WHICH I S WHA T H E I S S AYING , W AS B EC AU SE O F HIS ROL E I N T HE C OU RT HO US E I NVESTIGA TION , AND I F T HA T' S S O W E W OULD HAVE TO HAV E A S EPARAT E H EARING T O E STABLISH B OT H THI NGS.

W EL L , TWO COM ME NT S TH ER E. F IRST I AGR EE WITH YOU IN R EADING ALL OF THE C ASES I HAV E A H AR D T IM E REC ONCI LI NG T HE R ESUL TS A ND S OM E O F T HE M A ND WE G O BEC OM E T O 1 89 0 I N T HE FIR ST C AS E AND YOU REA D T HE M A LL O F THE W AY THR OU GH AND IT I S D IF FI CU LT T O REC ONCILE THEM , BUT T HE F UNDAMENTAL PROBL EM W IT H JUDGE HOL DE R' S ARG UMEN T A S I S EE I T IS HE I S FOC US IN G O N A N ISSUE W HICH HE RAI SE D AS M OTIV AT ION AS S ORT O F L IK E A D EFEN SE . THA T , TOO , I S A SLI PP ER Y S LOPE. W HAT O UGHT T O B E CONSI DE RE D IS WHA T I S THE C HA RGE? W HAT WAS T HE J UDGE O R A NY PUBLI C O FF ICIA L CHA RG ED WIT H TO GET A R IS E OUT O F THE PUB LIC OFF IC IAL' S O FFIC IA L DUTIE S IS T HI S Y OU ? Y OU G O B EYOND T HA T AND YOU ARE OUT INT O A L AND.

CH IE F J USTICE: LET'S SAY T HAT I N T HIS CAS E T HA T JUD GE H OLDE R , W E KNO W H E W AS I NVOLVED W IT H H EL PI NG F IN D O UT A BOUT O THER C ORRU PTIO N , I N THE C OURT HO US E , A ND LET 'S SAY THA T T HE E VIDE NC E , T HE J QC B ECAM E CON VI NCED AFTER THE WHOLE H EA RING THA T I T W AS A W HIST LE -B LOWE R TYP E O F M OTIV AT ION T HA T HAD LED T O IT. WHAT ABOUT THA T SITUATION? IN OTHER WORDS WHERE SOMEBODY, I MEAN THE JUDGE HAS A DUT Y I F T HE Y KNO W O F C ORRUPTION. THEY CAN'T TURN T HE O THER WAY. THEY ARE REQ UI RE D T O C ERTAINLY TO L ET THE J QC K NOW. N OW , M AY BE N OT T HE WAY J UDGE H OLDE R W AS INV OLVE D WIT H A N U NDERCO VER , B UT CER TA INLY T HEY HAV E A - - S O W HA T IT I F I T W AS EST AB LI SH ED T HA T T HI S W AS PAY B AC K F OR H AV IN G T URNED I N A NO THER JUD GE ?

WEL L , W E S TILL HAV E T O G O B ACK TO T HE B ASIC ISS UE D ID H E PLA GIAR IZ E THE PAP ER . T HE M OT IV E FOR B RI NGIN G THA T TO LIGHT I S I RREL EVAN T .

CH IEF JUS TICE: YOU D IDN'T ESTABLISH THAT HE DID. YOU D ID N'T E ST ABLI SH H E P LAGI ARIZED THE PAPER.

WE D ID N' T P ROVE I T B Y C LEAR A ND C ON VI NCIN G E VIDENC E I N ACC OR DA NC E T O T HE F IN DING S O F THE H EARI NG P ANEL. I THOUG HT W E PUT O N A V ER Y C OMPELL ING C IRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE T HAT HE DID, BUT W ITH ALL O F THE T ECHN ICAL ISS UE S R AI SE D A BOUT AUT HE NTIC IT Y O F THE P APER I T HI NK T HE PANEL WAS UNC OMFO RTABLE WIT H THE RESULT AND FOUND IT WAS N OT P ROVEN B Y CLEAR A ND C ONVINCING EVIDENCE. SO WE D IDN' T F IN D H E D ID N' T DO IT , E IT HE R , I S THE POI NT I 'M S AY IN G. T HEY JUS T F OU ND T HE RE W AS N OT PROOF B Y C LE AR AND C ONVINC ING EVIDENCE BUT I DON'T T HINK T HA T T HI S C OURT OR A NY COU RT S HOUL D B E PUT IN THE P OSIT IO N O F WHA T I S THE MOT IVAT IO N B EHIND T HE C HARG E WHI CH I S THE B ASIS F OR D ETER MI NING W HETH ER OR NOT THE CON DU CT INV OL VE D IN T HE J UDGE 'S O FF ICIAL DUT Y.

JUSTICE : AS I U NDER STAN D YOUR ARGUMENT THE N , U ND ER T HE T HORN BE R CAS E , YOU L OO K A T WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT UA L ACT IONS T HAT A RE B RO UGHT BEF OR E T HE J QC , WHI CH I N T HIS C AS E IS A LL EGED P LA GIAR IZ E !!ING. WHETHER OR NOT THAT A CT IO N A ROSE OUT O F H IS O FFIC IA L D UTY?

CORRECT.

JUSTICE: AND N OTHI NG ELSE. EVEN I F SOM EO NE B ROUGHT I T TO THE J QC'S A TT ENTI ON B ECAUSE OF SOM E O TH ER M OTIV E .

RIGHT . THE MOTIV E F OR S OM EONE BRINGING IT T O THE J QC 'S A TTENTION SHO UL D B E I RRELEV ANT TO T HE ISSUE O F W HETHER T HE A CT I TS EL F I NV OLVED THE JUD GE 'S D ECISIO N .

JUSTI CE : BUT H OW D OE S T HAT A DD RESS J UDGE H OLDE R' S C ONCERN HERE W HICH S EEMS T O B E T HA T I F, I N FAC T , SOM EO NE , S AY HAS A C AS E B EFOR E H IM A ND THE Y D ON 'T W AN T H IM T O BE ON THI S CAS E , AND S O T HE Y B RING I T T O THE JQC J US T S O H E HAS T O B E R EMOV AL LE D - - REMOV ED F ROM THI S CAS E A ND GO THR OUGH A LL O F T HIS , H OW D OES YOU R P OS ITIO N ADDRESS THAT KIND OF CONCERN?

WELL, WHEN Y OU S AY BRI NG I T TO T HE JQC , ONE , I T W OULD D ETERMINE W HAT IS I T T HE Y B ROUGHT T O T HE J QC .

JUS TI CE : BUT WE' RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ISSUE HERE, THE PLA GI AR IZIN G.

THE PLA GI ARIZ E !!IN G , I THI NK I N THA T CAS E H E W OU LD , AND LET 'S A SSUME T HE I NF OR MATION THEN WENT FOR WARD WIT H IT , IT G OE S T HR OUGH AS I B ELIE VE J USTICE P AR IENTE HAS P OI NT ED OUT A V ER Y R IG OROU S SCR EENING P ROCE SS FOR THE I NVESTIGA TIVE P AN EL W HICH J UDGE H OL DE R D ID N' T D O I N THIS CAS E , H E HAD T HE O PPORTUNITY TO APPEAR IN THI S VER Y C AREF ULLY S CR EE NE D B EFOR E A C HARG E IS BRO UG HT , B UT IF T HE C HARG E I S BRO UG HT AND INDEED IT I S T HE S AM E CHA RGE THAT W AS BRO UG HT I N THIS CASE T HE N O UR P OS ITIO N WOULD B E THA T H E IS G UILT Y O F I T . H E - - THE C AS E S HO UL D B E S UED O R SUF FICI EN T EVI DENCE THAT THE CASE S HOUL D B E P URSUED A ND I T IS N OT A MATTER OF THE MOTIV ATIO N OF THE PARTY, WHE TH ER THE Y W AN T T O GET T HE J UD GE R EC USED O R N OT. THAT SHOULDN'T BE A FACTOR.

JUS TICE: I S IT A T A LL ANA LOGOUS T O A S ITUA TI ON W HERE A DEFEN DANT I S A CC US ED C RIMI NALL Y AND IS A CQ UITT ED A ND I N S OME C IRCU MSTA NC ES C AN GET T HE IR A TT ORNE YS F EE S W HEN T HEY A RE A CQUI TTED ?

I D ON 'T K NO W BEC AUSE I D ON'T P RA CTIC E M UC H C RI MI NA L LAW THE CIRCU MS TANCES UNDER WHICH A CRIMINA L DEFEN DA NT CAN GET THEIR A TT ORNE YS F EE S W HEN THEY A RE A CQ UITT ED . PAR TICU LA RLY WHEN T HEY H AV E PRI VATE COUNS EL OBV IO USLY THE PUBLIC D EF EN DE R S YSTE M P ROVIDE S MOST OF THO SE C ASES. I CAN'T ANS WE R Y OU R Q UESTION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT WOULDN'T BE UNDER THE T HORNBE R D OCTR IN E.

NO , IT WO UL D N OT B E , AND I DON'T KNO W T HE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH T HE Y A RE REI MBUR SE D .

JUSTI CE : THE U NDER LY IN G C ONCE RN T HAT WE A RE H EARI NG VOICE D A ND W E REALLY NEE D T O MAK E S UR E I T I S F ULLY AIR ED I S SAY IN G I F YOU W AN T T O S ET UP A JUDGE T HE N YOU S ET H IM U P WITH T HING S THA T A RE OUT SIDE O F O FF ICIA L DUT IE S BUT IT I S R EALL Y N O DIF FERE NT THAN IF Y OU S ET T HEM U P W ITH THE Y U SE D I MPROPE R LAN GUAGE IN A C OURT RO OM. DO YOU SEE WHA T I'M SAY IN G T HOSE THAT W AN T TO A TTAC K A J UDGE THE ARG UM EN T FLO WS THAT IT R EA LLY ATT ACKS AND UNDER MI NE S T HE IND EPEN DE NC E O F THE J UD ICIA RY I F Y OU DRA W T HI S D ISTI NCTION BECAUSE THEY CAN ALWAYS S ET U P FAC TS O R F ABRI CATE A R EASO N T O I NITI AT E J QC S TU FF U ND ER A LLEGATIO NS THAT WOULD B E M ORE P ER SO NAL , DRU G C HARG ES, W HATEVE R IT IS , A ND THA T' S W HA T T HE Y SEE M TO B E VOI CING AS A P OL IC Y C ON CE RN I T HI NK I HEA R T HE CHI EF JUS TICE A LSO CON CERNED W ITH T RYIN G TO SLICE T HI S O NION I N D IFFERENT WAY S IF YOU 'VE G OT AN U ND ERLY IN G POL IC Y T HA T YOU N EE D T O ADVAN CE H OW I S I T BES T A DV ANCE D? W HY I S I T NOT B ES T A DVAN CE D B Y THE A RG UM EN T THAT T HE O THER SIDE M AK ES ?

THAT T HE JUD GE W OULD B E E NTITLED TO REC OV ER H IS A TTORNEYS F EE S .

JUS TI CE : BAS ICALLY I N A LL J QC PRO CE EDINGS I S W HA T I T C OMES DOW N T O.

WHICH I S S OM ETHI NG O BVIO USLY T HA T W AS NOT C ONSIDE RED I N PRE PA RA TI ON O F T HE BRIEF S I N T HI S CAS E , B UT I THINK Y OU R HONOR I N THE H YPOTHE TICAL SITUATION YOU GAVE WHERE THEY ARE S ETTI NG UP THE JUDGE AND MAK IN G A LLEGAT IONS OF DRU GS AND T HE LIKE, TO S OM E E XTEN T Y OU H AVE T O R EL Y U PO N T HE I NTEGRITY O F T HE C OM MISS IO N A ND ITS P RO CE DURE S T O WEE D OUT T HOSE KIN D O F C ASES S O T HEY N EV ER G ET T O THE P OINT W HERE I T R ES ULTS I N A F OR MA L C HARGE AND I N T HI S C AS E T WO WEE KS OF TRI AL A ND A M ILLI ON S EVEN I N ATT ORNE YS F EE S.

JUSTI CE : BUT I T HINK Y OU W OULD A GREE T HA T'S N OT AN E LEMENT O R C RITE RI A I NVOL VE D IN THE T HORN BE R D OC TRIN E?

RIG HT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT WHAT IF THE PLA GIAR IS M H ER E WAS P LA GI ARIS M O F A P RE SENTAT IO N THA T THEY W ER E MAK IN G A T A J UDICIA L C OL LEGE ? I T J US T D OESN 'T S EE M T HA T T HA T S PL IT M AK ES A LOT O F S ENSE AND T HERE FORE REQ UIRING SOMEBODY TO G O INT O T HE MOT IV AT IO N , A ND I 'M N OT S UR E YOU H AV E REA LL Y , Y OU KNOW , E ITHE R WAY T HE IND EP EN DENC E OF THE JUD GE I S T HREA TENED BY H AV IN G T O DEF END THESE C HARG ES .

WEL L , I THI NK T HE H YPOT HE TICAL YOU GAVE I S VERY CLOSE TO THA T E LLIS ON C ASE W HI CH W AS A DIS TRIC T COU RT OPINION I N W HICH T HE SE W ERE A WARD ED I N CON NE CTIO N W IT H PLA GI AR ISM T YP E C HA RG E W HERE IT REL ATED T O T HE O FFICIA L DUT IES OF THE CASE.

CHIE F J USTICE: BUT DO Y OU F EEL I GUE SS I K NO W YOU A RE ADV OC ATING FOR T HI S BUT D O Y OU REALLY F EE L A S A GA IN T HE J QC HER E , I S A CT IN G I N T HE PUBLI C I NTERES T , D O Y OU FEE L C OMFO RT ABLE , REA LL Y , WIT H THA T DIS TI NCTION?

YES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: A ND TELL ME WHY.

BECAUSE I THI NK , A ND I A M A N ADVOC AT E F OR THE JQC . I 'M C ONCE RN ED A BOUT , A S I IND ICAT ED B EF ORE , WHA T I W OULD C AL L THE SLI PP ER Y SLOPE OF GOING B AC K AND L OOKING AT THE M OT IV ES , W HY S OMEONE B ROUGHT T HE CHA RG E INSTEAD OF WHAT IS THE C HARG E.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I 'M N OT , U NDER M Y SCE NA RI O Y OU WOULDN'T LOOK AT THE MOTIVATION. YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE FAC T T HAT THEY W ER E REA LL Y J US T A P REVAILIN G PARTY A ND THE J QC W AS S UFFI CI EN TL Y C ON CERN ED T HA T THE ACT IO NS W ER E A CTIONS THAT W OU LD I NTER FE RE WITH THAT PERSON'S A BILI TY TO S ER VE A S A J UD GE .

A ND THA T WAS T HE S EC ON D PART O F W HA T I W AS G OING T O S AY , O R A DO PTIN G WHE N W HA T I C ONSI DE R T O B E T HE V ERY B ROAD PUB LI C DEF ENDE R TYP E C ONCEPT OF P UTTI NG THE J UDGES I N S PECIAL CAT EGOR Y A ND BEI NG E NTIT LE D T O F EE S AND VIR TUAL LY A NY AND E VERY C ASE I N W HI CH C HARG ES W ER E B ROUG HT P ARTI CU LARLY IF T HEY ARE NOT P RO VE N A ND OF C OURS E MAN Y C AS ES A RE R ESOL VE D A ND T HEY ARE N EVER A CT UALL Y G O TO A F UL L- BLOW N HEA RI NG , BUT I D ON'T THI NK T HA T T HE COM MISSION W OU LD FEEL C OMFO RT ABLE W HE N C ON FR ONTE D WITH T HIS F UL L W HAT I C AL L T HE BRO AD P UBLI C D EFEN DE R-TYPE A RGUM EN T O R CON SIDE RATION THAT HAS B EE N G IV EN .

J USTI CE : W E S TILL H AV E T HE POSSIBILITY O F AN I MPEA CH ME NT P ROCE ED IN G AGAINST ANY S ITTI NG J UDGE , CORRECT?

YES, SIR.

JUSTICE : W HA T' S - - HAS A NYONE A NA LYZE D A ND L OO K L OO K L OOKE D A T THA T P ROCE SS I F THA T WER E A NALY ZE D I F THE J QC R EF USED T O A CT B UT THE N T HE LEGIS LA TURE P ICKS U P A ND D ECIDES TO MOV E F ORWA RD W HAT'S THE S ITUA TION U ND ER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES? I'M NOT SURE THAT T HESE CASES ADD RE SS ED A NYTH IN G LIKE THAT?

I D ON 'T BEL IE VE I T DOE S. I W OU LD A NT ICIP AT E T HA T I F T HE JUDGE THA T W AS UND ER THE I MPEACH MENT , I F H E I S S UCCESS FULLY DEF EATE D T HE I MPEACH MENT AND I T ARO SE O UT O F HIS O FFIC IA L DUTIE S T HA T YOU WOU LD S EE A T HO RN BE R T YP E C ON TE NTION .

JUSTI CE : BUT AGA IN THE S AM E T HO RNBE R FIRST PRONG T HAT I T M US T B E O FF IC IA L DUTIES NOT JUST ACR OS S THE B OARD?

BECAU SE O NC E YOU S TR AY A WA Y F RO M THA T T O T HE B ROADER PUBLIC DEF ENDE R-TY PE C ONCEPT I THI NK I T I S S OMET HI NG THAT I S F AR B EYON D A NYTHIN G THA T THE COM MI SSIO N HAS D EALT W IT H O R I T HINK W E A CTUALL Y BRI EF ED A BOUT , EITHER, SO WE WOU LD R EQ UE ST T HAT THE MOT IO N B E DEN IE D I N T HI S CAS E. I SEE M Y T IM E I S R UN NING OUT , B E DENIE D I N T HI S CAS E B ECAUSE AND FOR A V AR IETY O F REA SONS SET FOR TH IN THE BRIEF WHICH I HAVEN'T HAD A N O PPOR TU NITY TO A DDRE SS , B UT B ECAUSE THE VER Y F