Inquiry Concerning a Judge: Brandt C. Downey III
SC05-2228

THE COURT WILL TAKE THE NEXT
CASE OF THE INQUIRY CONCERNING
JUDGE BRANDT DOWNEY, AND AS WE
ARE BRINGING THAT CASE, THOSE
PARTIES UP I WOULD LIKE TO
WELCOME A GROUP THAT CAME IN IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE ORAL ARGUMENT
AND THAT IS THE FLORIDA FH
LEGISLATURE.
WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU OVER
HERE IN THE SUPREME COURT, AND
WITH YOUR LEADER, DR.^MARILYN
NORMAN AND WE'LL LOOK FORWARD
TO TALKING TO YOU AFTER THIS
ORAL ARGUMENT.
OKAY.
LET'S SEE HOW WE ARE GOING TO
DO THIS.
WHO IS GOING TO BE APPEARING
FOR THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
COMMISSION?
>> GOOD MORNING.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I'M
LANNY RUSSELL, AND I AM
REPRESENTING THE INVESTIGATIVE
PANEL OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE
INVESTIGATIVE PANEL FOR THE
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATION
COMMISSION.
>> JUSTICE: LET ME GET TO A
QUESTION THAT I HAVE.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> JUSTICE: AND THAT IS AS I
READ THE STIPULATION, WHAT HAS
BEEN PROPOSED IS THAT THE
MATTER OF WHAT THE COMMISSION
BROUGHT AS FORMAL CHARGES WOULD
ALL BE DISMISSED, AND THAT
THERE WOULD ONLY BE IN ESSENCE
A PUBLIC REPRIMAND FOR THE
OVERALL CONDUCT.
AND I RECOGNIZE THAT COUNT 3,
WHICH I CONSIDERED TO BE AN
EXTREMELY SERIOUS CHARGE
AGAINST A JUDGE WHO WOULD
ENGAGE IN CONDUCT WHICH APPEARS
TO ME TO BE MAKING SEXUAL
ADVANCES TO A LAWYER IN THE
COURT, AND THAT THAT IS JUST
SILENT AS TO WHETHER THAT'S
DISMISSED OR THAT IS GOING TO
GO FORWARD, OR WHAT IS GOING TO
HAPPEN TO THOSE VERY SERIOUS
CHARGES.
DOES THE COMMISSION CONCLUDE
THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE
EVIDENCE TO PROCEED?
>> I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL
PARTS TO THE QUESTION.
LET ME ADDRESS THE THREE PARTS
THAT I UNDERSTOOD, YOUR HONOR.

FIRST WAS THE PROPOSED
RESOLUTION MORE THAN THE CHARGE
THAT WAS BROUGHT.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU MAY WANT
TO PUT THE MIC CLOSER.
>> THANK YOU.
IS THAT BETTER?
THE PROPOSED DISCIPLINE
INCLUDES MANY PARTS.
THERE WILL BE A REPRIMAND FROM
THIS COURT PUBLIC OF THE JUDGE.

THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC APOLOGY
BY THE JUDGE.
IMPORTANTLY AT THE END OF THE
JUDGE'S TERM ON JANUARY OF '07
THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER
JUDICIAL SERVICE BY JUDGE
DOWNEY.
>> JUSTICE: BUT THE JUDGE IS
GOING TO SERVE OUT THE JUDGE'S
TERM WITHOUT ANY SUSPENSION OR
ANY TYPE OF DISCIPLINE DIRECTED
FOR HIM CONTINUING TO SERVE
WHEN HE HAS BEEN ALLEGED TO
HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS TYPE OF
MISCONDUCT.
>> AND THE TWO OTHER COMPONENTS
WHICH ARE IMPORTANT WAS THE
JUDGE IS PRESENTLY IN
COUNSELING, CONTINUES IN
COUNSELING.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT MAYBE
LET'S JUST GET TO THE -- WE
NEED TO KNOW ARE WE CONSIDERING
THE STIPULATION AS IF COUNT
THREE NEVER EXISTED?
WAS IT A DECISION THAT THERE
WASN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO GO
FORWARD ON COUNT 3 AND WE ARE
JUST TO CONSIDER COUNT 1?
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
I THINK IN RETROSPECT WE ON
BEHALF OF THE PANEL COULD HAVE
DONE A BETTER JOB IN THE
STIPULATION EXPLAINING THAT.
AND THE REASON FOR --.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: AND THAT
BEING YES, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH
INFORMATION, NOT ENOUGH
EVIDENCE TO GO FORWARD WITH
COUNT 3?
>> THERE WAS DIFFICULTY WITH
THE EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR, AND
I'LL EXPLAIN THAT IN A MOMENT
BUT HERE'S WHERE THE PANEL WAS,
I BELIEVE, IN THIS MATTER.
I'M THEIR LAWYER BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE
PANEL WAS FOCUSED ON MORE ON
THE ADMISSION OR PROOF OF A
PARTICULAR CHARGE.
THEY WERE MORE FOCUSED ON THE
DISCIPLINE.
THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED THAT
APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE BE
ADMINISTERED IN THIS CASE, AND
THE PROBLEM PARTICULARLY WITH
THE COUNT WE'VE NOW ADDRESSED,
THE COUNT 3 CONCERNING THE
INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATIONS
WITH THE STATE ATTORNEYS IS
THAT AS THE COURT KNOWS FROM
THE RECORD BEFORE IT EACH OF
THOSE RECIPIENTS OF THOSE
INAPPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION AND
WE ARE NOT HERE TO DEFEND THEM.

THEY ARE WRONG.
THE JUDGE ACKNOWLEDGED THEY ARE
WRONG HAS STATED IN THE RECORD
BEFORE THIS COURT THAT ALTHOUGH
INAPPROPRIATE NEITHER RECIPIENT
OF THE COMMUNICATIONS TOOK THEM
AS HARASSMENT.
>> JUSTICE: I HAVE A HARD TIME
ACCEPTING THAT STATEMENT.
THOSE ARE STATE'S ATTORNEYS WHO
ARE APPEARING BEFORE THE COURT,
AND WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO
SAY THAT IN HINDSIGHT IT DID
NOT BOTHER ME, THAT'S NOT THE
POINT TO ME.
THE POINT IS THAT CONDUCT IS
TOTALLY ABUSIVE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL AND THE SYSTEM.
>> IT IS, AND THE CONDUCT IS
INAPPROPRIATE AND THE QUESTION
WAS THE APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE
FOR THAT CONDUCT, AND THE
PROOF, THEY WERE HAVING
PROBLEMS WITH THOSE AFFIDAVITS,
THAT WOULD BE THE SAME PROOF
THAT WOULD LIKELY BE IN FRONT
OF THE JQC IF THERE HAD BEEN A
FULL HEARING OF THE MATTER AND
BASED UPON THAT PROOF, THE
DETERMINATION OF THE
INVESTIGATIVE PANEL WHO HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO INQUIRE OF THE
JUDGE.
HE WAS SWORN, DETERMINED THAT
THIS DISCIPLINE WAS THE
APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE AND IT
IS EVERYTHING SHORT OF THE
IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF THE JUDGE
AND ULTIMATELY EXCEPT FOR THE
PERIOD OF TIME THAT HE STAYS IN
OFFICE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THAT'S
OUR CONCERN.
AND THAT'S, WE HAVE GOT AN
ADMISSION OF AGAIN IN COUNT 1
TO ME IS VERY SERIOUS.
I DON'T WANT TO, AND I THINK
THE JQC AGREES IT IS NOT JUST
HABITUAL VIEWING OF PORNOGRAPHY
BUT BEING TOLD OVER AND OVER
AGAIN THAT IT WAS CAUSING
VIRUSES AND SAID IT COULD IN
EFFECT THE ENTIRE NETWORK AND
PUTTING OTHER PEOPLE THAT CAME
TO LOOK AT THAT COMPUTER IN
HAVING TO VIEW IMAGES THAT WERE
INAPPROPRIATE.
SO OUR CONCERN IS WHY ISN'T
THERE A RECOMMENDATION THAT
THERE BE A SUSPENSION FOR THE
REST OF THE TERM OF OFFICE?
>> AND THE REASON FOR THAT,
YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THIS COURT
HAS RECOGNIZED SUSPENSION IS A
VERY HARSH REMEDY, AND LOOKING
AT THOSE CASES IN THE
PRECEDENCE OF THIS COURT THEY
ARE LIMITED IN WHICH A PREFINAL
HEARING SUSPENSION HAS
OCCURRED.
THEY HAVE ALL BEEN FOR CONDUCT
MUCH MORE AGGREGIOUS THAN THE
CONDUCT WITH WHICH THIS JUDGE
HAS BEEN CHARGED AND WITH WHICH
HE HAS ADMITTED.
>> JUSTICE: CAN WE UNDERSTAND
REALLY WHAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS
IS ABOUT?
CAN WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS
WHOLE PROCESS IS ABOUT?
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE TOTAL
FUNCTION OF THE JQC IS TO
ENSURE TO THE PUBLIC THAT WHEN
THEY WALK INTO A COURTROOM THAT
THEY HAVE A JUDICIAL OFFICER
WHO IS BEHAVING AS A JUDICIAL
OFFICER OUGHT TO BEHAVE, AND
WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DO WE SEND
THROUGH A STIPULATION, WELL,
YOU'RE NOT FIT TO BE A JUDGE
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO
SERVE ANY MORE TERM BUT WE'RE
GOING TO LET YOU HEAR CASES FOR
THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.
THAT IS THE DIFFICULTY THAT I
SEE AND I HAVE IT WITH MANY OF
THE JQC'S APPROACHES WITH
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR FINES
AND FINES THAT AND I'VE WRITTEN
ABOUT IT, THAT I'M VERY
TROUBLED WITH THAT, BECAUSE
THAT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM
FOR OUR CITIZENS THAT COME IN
AND EXPECT A JUDICIAL OFFICER
THAT WILL TREAT THEM WITH
DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND CONDUCT
HIMSELF OR HERSELF SO THAT'S --
WHAT IS THIS PROCESS ABOUT WHEN
YOU SAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO
DEFER IT?
WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT COME
IN IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS GOING
TO THINK?
>> THE CONDUCT OF THE JUDGE,
UNACCEPTABLE AS IT WAS, WASN'T
DIRECTLY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
HIS JUDICIAL OFFICE.
IT IS UNACCEPTABLE JUDICIAL
CONDUCT BUT IT DOESN'T GO TO
THE INTEGRITY ISSUE OF THE
JUDGE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: WASN'T HE
TAKEN OFF THE CRIMINAL COURT
BENCH?
>> YES, AND THAT WAS PART OF
THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THAT
INTERFERED WITH OTHER JUDGES
HAD TO BE REASSIGNED.
I MEAN, THIS, SO THERE WAS SOME
CONCERN THAT THIS JUDGE SHOULD
NOT CONTINUE TO SIT IN THE
CRIMINAL DIVISION.
>> EXACTLY, AND THAT SAME
CONCERN ALSO, I THINK, IMPACTED
THE DECISION ABOUT IMMEDIATE
SUSPENSION.
THINK OF THE IMPACT OF THAT
IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION.
THERE IS NOBODY TO TAKE THE
JUDGE'S PLACE.
OTHER JUDGES WILL HAVE TO PICK
UP THE FLAK AND HERE ADDITIONAL
MATTERS.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: SHOULD THE
JQC, THOUGH, BE CONCERNED WITH
THAT?
SHOULDN'T WE IN THE COURT
SYSTEM BE CONCERNED WHETHER WE
HAVE TO USE SENIOR JUDGES,
WHETHER WE -- SHOULD THAT BE
THE JQC'S CONCERN?
>> I THINK IT WAS PART OF THEIR
APPROPRIATE CONCERN BUT THE
NARROW ISSUE BEFORE THIS PANEL
WAS DID THE CONDUCT DEMONSTRATE
A PRESENT UNFITNESS TO HOLD
OFFICE, AND BASED UPON A
LONG-TERM OF OTHERWISE
EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL SERVICE AND
THE APPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON
THAT SERVICE THE DECISION OF
THE JQC THIS COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED IS DESERVING OF
GREAT WEIGHT.
>> JUSTICE: CAN I CLARIFY?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> JUSTICE: ABSENT THE
STIPULATION, WOULD THE JUDGE BE
ELIGIBLE FOR REELECTION TO
OFFICE FOR ANOTHER SIX-YEAR
TERM?
>> YES, SIR.
>> JUSTICE: AND WOULD HE ABLE
TO FULFILL THAT ENTIRE SIX-YEAR
TERM?
>> YES, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
>> JUSTICE: HE WASN'T
APPROACHING MANDATORY
RETIREMENT?
NO, I DON'T BELIEVE MANDATORY
RETIREMENT WAS THERE.
SO THE ABSENCE OF HIS ABILITY
TO SERVE AS A SENIOR JUDGE WAS
AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE
STIPULATION, AND ABSENT THE
SUSPENSION WHICH HAD ITS OWN
PROBLEM IS ULTIMATELY WE
PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO HAVE THIS MATTER
THROUGH THE JUDICIAL
QUALIFICATIONS --.
>> JUSTICE: TO GO INTO SERVICE
FOR SENIOR JUDGE HE WOULD HAVE
TO GO INTO EVALUATION AND FOR
HIM TO SERVE AN ADDITIONAL
SIX-YEAR TERM HE WOULD HAVE TO
HE ELECTED?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> JUSTICE: AND WITH THE
PUBLICITY ON THIS MATTER, IT
WOULD BE HARD, BUT WHAT I GET
BACK TO IS THAT YOU'VE GOT THE
WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE EXTREMELY
SERIOUS CHARGES THAT ARE JUST
NOT GOING -- THEY ARE JUST
VANISHING IN THE AIR, AND WHAT
DOES THAT DO AS FAR AS OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY?
ARE WE NOT GOING TO SEND A
SIGNAL TO THEM THAT THAT TYPE
OF CONDUCT, WE ARE NOT REALLY
GOING TO PROSECUTE?
>> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THE
STIPULATION NECESSARILY SENDS
THAT MESSAGE, BECAUSE THE
DISCIPLINE IS APPROPRIATE AND
THE DISCIPLINE PROPOSED BY THE
STIPULATION IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE PRECEDENT OF THIS COURT IN
WHICH THE CONDUCT THAT WAS
COMPARABLE OR EVEN WORSE, THE
STIPULATION, EXCUSE ME, THE
DISCIPLINE APPROVED BY THIS
BOARD WAS, IN FACT, A PUBLIC
REPRIMAND.
WE CAN GO BACK LONG INTO THE
INJURIES {PRUD} HE EVENS AND
FIND -- -- JURISPRUDENCE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: AGAIN DOES
THAT INCLUDE COUNT 3?
>> NO, THIS IS WHERE I
ACKNOWLEDGE IN RETROSPECT WE
COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB OF
EXPLAINING THAT.
THE PANEL FOCUS WAS ON THE
PENALTY AND NOT ON THE SPECIFIC
CHARGES BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION IS YES THE DECISION OF
THE PANEL WAS EVEN IF
PROVEABLE, COUNT 3, THE
APPROPRIATE REMEDY IS THAT
CONTAINED WITHIN THE
STIPULATION.
THEY WERE FOCUSED ON THE
CONDUCT, YOUR HONOR.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THERE WAS
A JUDGE IN PALM BEACH COUNTY
THAT PART OF THE STIPULATION
FOR HARASSING ASSISTANT STATE
ATTORNEYS OR OTHER INDIVIDUALS
WAS HE AGREED TO AN IMMEDIATE
REMOVAL FROM THE BENCH.
HE DIDN'T CONTINUE TO SERVE.
>> AND THERE WAS A NUMBER OF
OTHER MISCONDUCT I THINK
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT
MISCONDUCT.
IT WAS TRULY HARASSMENT AND
THERE WAS EX^PARTE
COMMUNICATIONS.
AND IN THIS CASE IF YOU GO BACK
AND LOOK AT THE ONE I WAS
REFERRING TO WAS THE VALOR, THE
DISCIPLINE WAS PUBLIC REPRIMAND
AND A MORE RECENT CASE WE HAVE
TWO OF THE CASES, THE INQUIRY
CONCERNING JUDGE POPE AND THE
CONDUCT IN THAT CASE I BELIEVE
WAS EVEN MORE AGGREGIOUS THAN
THE CONDUCT IN THIS CASE.
THE DISCIPLINE IMPOSED BY THIS
COURT WAS PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND
LASTLY IN THE 2006 DECISION
CONCERNING ADAMS THERE WAS
ACTUALLY WORSE THAN LOOKING AT
OR TALKING ABOUT A RELATIONSHIP
THAT WAS THERE WAS AN ACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE JUDGE
AND A PERSON APPEARING
REGULARLY IN FRONT OF THAT
JUDGE, AND THE IMPOSED
DISCIPLINE WAS A PUBLIC
REPRIMAND AND LOOKING AT THAT
PRECEDENT AND THIS COURT, THE
PANEL HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO
INQUIRE OF JUDGE DOWNEY FOR TWO
HOURS AND EVALUATE HIS
DEMEANOR, HIS REMORSEFULNESS
AND MAKE THE DECISION DOES THIS
CONDUCT ALTHOUGH OFFENSIVE AND
NOT APPROPRIATE MEAN HE IS
UNFIT TO CONTINUE TO HOLD
OFFICE.
>> JUSTICE: LET ME ASK YOU A
QUESTION ON THAT POINT.
IN THAT CONSIDERATION, DID YOU
HAVE DISCUSSION WITH THE CHIEF
JUDGE OR OTHER JUDGES OR OTHER
LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE IN THE
AREA THAT HE SERVES TO SEE
WHETHER THIS IS ACCEPTABLE OR
APPROPRIATE, WORKABLE,
WHATEVER?
>> IT IS DIFFICULT TO ANSWER
THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR,
WITHOUT GOING BEYOND THE
RECORD.
IT -- THERE WAS AN
INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE
JQC INVESTIGATOR THAT INCLUDED
I BELIEVE NINE INTERVIEWS,
INTERVIEWS OF ALL OF THOSE
PERSONS YOU WOULD SUSPECT IT
WOULD, AND THOSE PERSONS
CONSISTENTLY, ALTHOUGH HAVING
PROBLEMS WITH THE JUDGE'S
CONDUCT, BEING OFFENDED BY
THIS, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE IS
AN EFFECTIVE JUDGE WHO HAS
MANAGED TO PUSH HIS DOCKET
FORWARD AND THERE WAS
INDICATION THAT HE CONTINUED TO
SERVE EFFECTIVELY AT THAT
POSITION.
WE HAD THAT INFORMATION
AVAILABLE TO US, YOUR HONOR,
YES, SIR.
I THINK IT IS 9 AND THEN THE 6B
TRANSCRIPT IF YOU HAVE BEEN IN
FRONT OF THE PANEL, IF YOU EVER
WATCHED THE AGGRESSIVENESS AND
THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY
INQUIRE OF A JUDGE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: ARE THOSE ON
VIDEO?
>> NO, TRANSCRIPT ONLY.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: WE'VE GOT
JUSTICE QUINCE AND THEN JUSTICE
LEWIS.
>> JUSTICE: WHAT CONCERNS ME
HERE IS THE ANSWER OF JUDGE
DOWNEY TO THE WHOLE CHARGES,
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN THAT
ANSWER JUDGE DOWNEY REALLY TRY
TOSS DOWNPLAY HIS WHOLE
INVOLVEMENT IN THIS AND EVEN GO
SO FAR AS TO TALK ABOUT HOW IT
IS A PART OF SOMEONE ELSE'S
FAULT FOR LETTING THE MEDIA
KNOW ABOUT THESE CHARGES.
HE REALLY MINIMIZES ALL OF THE
PORNOGRAPHY VIEWING THAT WENT
ON AND THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME
THAT WE HAVE A STIPULATION HERE
BASED ON I ASSUME IN PART THESE
ANSWERS WHICH REALLY IN MY
ESTIMATION TRIES TO REALLY
MINIMIZE THIS CONDUCT AND
CERTAINLY HE DOES NOT AGREE
THAT THE CONDUCT IN COUNT 3
TOOK PLACE.
HE ACTUALLY SAYS THAT HE DENIES
COUNTS 2 AND 3.
>> RIGHT.
AND THAT'S THE UNFORTUNATE
PROBLEM I THINK LIMITED TO
THOSE PLEADINGS THAT ARE IN
FRONT OF THE COURT BECAUSE I
THINK YOU WILL HEAR SOMETHING
DIFFERENT FROM JUDGE DOWNEY
TODAY.
IN THE DENIAL, YOUR HONOR, IT
IS NOT OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS
OF EITHER OF THE TWO COUNTS.
WHAT WE HAD THERE WAS A DISPUTE
OVER WHAT THE MEANING OF THE
FACTS WERE.
THE COMMUNICATIONS WERE NOT
DENIED, THEY WON'T BE DENIED BY
THE JUDGE TODAY.
THEY ARE ADMITTED.
THE QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS THE
APPROPRIATE CHARACTERIZATION OF
THOSE FACTS IN TERMS OF
MISCONDUCT AND WHAT WAS THE
APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE FOR
THOSE AND DO THEY FIT WITHIN A
PARTICULAR VIOLATION OF THE
JUDICIAL CANON.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
IN CONNECTION WITH PUBLIC
INTEGRITY DON'T KNOW THAT A
FURTHER PROCEEDING SERVES MUCH
PURPOSE.
THE FACTS ARE OUT THERE.
THE E-MAILS ARE UNDISPUTED.
THEY'VE BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE
IMMEDIATE {YACHLT} THE ISSUES
CONCERNING COMPUTER HAVE BEEN
PUBLISHED IN THE MEDIA.
OUR CONCERN WITH COUNT 2 WHICH
I BELIEVE WAS THE JUROR NOTE
COUNT WAS WHEN WE GOT VERY
FOCUSED AND LOOKED IN THAT
COUNT VERY PRECISELY IT BECOMES
MORE A MATTER OF JUDICIAL ERROR
AS OPPOSED TO JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT.
THE STATEMENT OF THE JUDGE VERY
PRECISELY, YOUR HONOR, IN
REGARDS TO COUNT 2 WAS NOT A
MISSTATEMENT OF FACT THAT THE
JUROR WAS NOT SLEEPING.
IT WAS MORE PRECISELY AND THE
INVESTIGATION IS SHOWN A
STATEMENT BY THE JUDGE THAT MAY
HAVE BEEN AN ERROR OF LAW BUT
NOT A MISSTATEMENT OF FACT THAT
HE BELIEVED THAT THE JUROR
SLEEPING WAS NOT NECESSARILY
ENOUGH TO MANDATE A NEW TRIAL
FOR THAT DEFENDANT.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY WE HAVEN'T FOCUSED ON COUNT
2 BUT THE DISPUTE MORE
PRECISELY, YOUR HONOR, IS NOT
IN THE FACTS.
I THINK YOU WILL HEAR TODAY THE
JUDGE ADMITS THOSE THINGS
HAPPENED.
HE ADMITTED IT AT THE 6B
HEARING AND THE DISPUTE MORE
PRECISELY WAS WHAT WAS THE
APPROPRIATE CHARACTERIZATION OF
THEM AND THEN THE APPROPRIATE
DISCIPLINE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE
LEWIS?
>> JUSTICE: MINE IS A
STRUCTURAL QUESTION AND IT
PERTAINS TO YOUR COMMENTS WITH
REGARD TO THE DISCIPLINE THAT
THIS COURT HAS IMPOSED.
IT SEEMS TO ME AND PLEASE
CORRECT ME IF YOU BELIEVE THAT
I'M WRONG ON THIS, BUT IT SEEMS
AS THOUGH THIS COURT HAS
TRADITIONALLY DEFERED TO THE
JQC IN ITS DECISIONS IN MOST
CASES WITH REGARD TO THE
DISCIPLINE.
NOW, IT HAS BEEN RECENTLY THAT
WE HAVE NOT TOTALED THEM.
DO YOU NOT PERCEIVE IT IN THAT
FASHION THAT THE JQC COMES UP
AND THERE IS GREAT DEFERENCE TO
THAT?
THAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME IF YOU
THINK THAT THIS COURT IS
DICTATING THAT'S THE RESULT.
>> I THINK THE WORDS OF THE
COURT IF I CAN QUOTE THEM ARE
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
COMMISSION ARE ENTITLED TO
GREAT WEIGHT.
I THINK THIS COURT HAS
HISTORICALLY DONE THAT AND
APPROPRIATELY DONE THAT.
JUSTICE WELLS WHEN I WAS HERE
EIGHT MONTHS AGO ON A JQC
MATTER OBSERVED WHAT WAS
APPROPRIATE WAS TO DEFER TO THE
JQC IS THEY ARE ON THE FRONT
LINE.
THEY GET TO SIT DOWN.
THIS WAS IN A TRIAL CONTEXT,
NOT A STIPULATION BUT THEY WERE
THERE.
THEY SAW THE CROSS-EXAMINATION,
THEY SAW THE TESTIMONY.
THEY WERE ABLE TO MORE
APPROPRIATELY AND EFFECTIVELY
EVALUATE THAT EVIDENCE THAN
THIS COURT IS ABLE TO DO AND
FOR THAT REASON THEY DO THAT.
>> JUSTICE: THAT GOES TO THE
SECOND QUESTION THEN IF THAT IS
THE CASE THEN IF THE SLATE WERE
CLEAN, THIS STIPULATION AND THE
DISCIPLINE THAT'S INCLUDED
THEREIN IS WHAT THE JQC WOULD
DO AS ITS TOTAL RECOMMENDATION
NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THIS COURT
HAS HELD BUT BECAUSE THAT IS
THE FACT-FINDING TRIAL LEVEL
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, SO IT
IS NOT YOU ARE BEING MANDATED
TO DO THIS, THIS IS THE
RECOMMENDATION; IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR, AND LET ME
EXPLAIN VERY BRIEFLY WHY.
BECAUSE THE DECISION THE JQC
WAS THIS CONDUCT WAS DESERVING,
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT DESERVING OF
A SERIOUS RESPONSE FROM THAT
COURT AND WE BELIEVE OUR
STIPULATION IS THAT SERIOUS
RESPONSE.
WE DIDN'T FIND THAT KIND OF
CONDUCT THAT DEMONSTRATED A
PRESENT UNFITNESS TO HOLD
OFFICE AND WHAT WE HAVE IS THE
COURT, WHICH SAYS LOOK FOR
REMORSE, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
WRONGDOING, LOOK FOR A
LONG-TERM JUDICIAL SERVICE THAT
OTHERWISE WAS UNTROUBLED AND
THEN PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND WHAT
THIS COURT HAS SAID AND IT IS
TRUE, ALSO, IT IS APPROPRIATE
THAT THIS COURT CLOSELY LOOK AT
THIS STIPULATION AND EVALUATE
THAT STIPULATION.
THAT'S YOUR ULTIMATE
RESPONSIBILITY, BUT THOSE CASES
IN WHICH WE SIMPLY SEE REMOVAL
RECENTLY HAVE BEEN THE CASES
INVOLVING ELECTION MISCONDUCT
BECAUSE THAT'S THE MISCONDUCT
RELATED TO HOLDING OFFICE.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS MISCONDUCT
THAT DOESN'T RELATE TO THE
JUDGE BEING IN OFFICE.
WE REQUEST THAT YOU CLOSELY
LOOK AT THE STIPULATION, THAT
YOU EVALUATE THIS INFORMATION
AND THEN RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
THAT YOU APPROVE THE
STIPULATION.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU.
JUDGE DOWNEY?
>> THANK YOU, AND GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS BRANDT DOWNEY.
I WAS FIRST ELECTED A COUNTY
JUDGE IN PINELLAS COUNTY IN
1984 AND SERVED IN THAT
POSITION FOR FOUR YEARS.
IN 1988 I WAS ELECTED A CIRCUIT
JUDGE AND I HAVE BEEN REELECTED
EVER SINCE.
IN 2003, I HAD A DISCUSSION
WITH MY CHIEF JUDGE DAVID
DEMERS WHO SAID THAT HE HAD
BEEN APPROACHED BY ANOTHER
JUDGE THAT AN ASSISTANT STATE
ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HAD
BROUGHT TO HER SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT SEVERAL COMMENTS THAT I
HAD MADE TO HER.
ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS THAT I
ASKED HER TO GO TO LUNCH IN THE
CAFETERIA IN THE BOTTOM FLOOR
OF OUR COURTHOUSE.
I ASSURED JUDGE DEMERS THAT I
HAD NOT TALKED WITH THIS
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY
OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE THAT
CERTAINLY IF I HAD SAID
ANYTHING TO HER THAT MADE HER
FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE THAT I WOULD
APOLOGIZE TO HER AND HE SAID,
NO, DON'T SAY ANYTHING MORE TO
HER.
THEN AND NOTHING MORE WAS SAID
ABOUT THAT SITUATION, AND THIS
PARTICULAR ASSISTANT STATE
ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE ANY TYPE
OF FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST ME.

>> JUSTICE: LET ME ASK YOU
THIS.
>> YES, SIR.
>> JUSTICE: YOU NO LONGER DENY
THE ALLEGATION?
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
>> JUSTICE: AND ONE OF THE
ALLEGATIONS THAT CONCERNS ME IS
THE ALLEGATION THAT ON MARCH
23, 2005, YOU ASKED ANOTHER
FEMALE ATTORNEY TO APPROACH THE
BENCH WHILE COURT WAS IN
SESSION TO ENGAGE IN A PERSONAL
CONVERSATION WITH HER.
IN ADDITION, YOU AUTHORED AN
E-MAIL MESSAGE LATER THE SAME
DAY WHEREIN YOU STATED IT WAS
NICE SEEING YOU IN COURT
LOOKING SO PRETTY.
LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING YOU
SOON IN COURT OR OUT.
BEST REGARDS, JUDGE D.
DID YOU SEND THAT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE AS YOU
STAND THERE TODAY THAT THAT IS
AN INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT ON THE
PART OF A MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY?
>> YES, SIR.
I SHOULD NOT HAVE CALLED HER UP
TO THE BENCH AND CERTAINLY IT
WAS INAPPROPRIATE SINCE SHE WAS
APPEARING IN FRONT OF ME AS A
PRIVATE DEFENSE ATTORNEY.
>> JUSTICE: WELL, WHATEVER TYPE
OF ATTORNEY SHE WAS AN ATTORNEY
IN YOUR COURT.
>> YES, SIR.
>> JUSTICE: AND ANY KIND OF
PERSONAL COMMENT AND CERTAINLY
A SEXUAL TYPE OF ORIENTED
COMMENT IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE
TOTALLY AGAINST THE JUDICIAL
ETHICS OF THE JUDGES OF THIS
STATE WHO HAVE GOT TO CONDUCT
THEMSELVES SO EVERYBODY HAS
RESPECT FOR THEM.
>> YES, SIR, YOU ARE EXACTLY
RIGHT, AND MY CONDUCT WITH
REGARD TO THAT ATTORNEY WAS
TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE, AND I
ADMITTED THAT IN {MIP} RESPONSE
TO THE 6B HEARING, AND JUSTICE
QUINCE IN RESPONSE TO PART OF
YOUR QUESTION AS IT RELATES TO
THAT PARTICULAR ALLEGATION IN
THE FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED
AGAINST ME BY THE JQC, I NEVER
DID FILE AN ANSWER FOR THAT
COUNT.
I FILED A MOTION AS IT RELATES
TO THAT COUNT, WHICH WAS
RESPONDED TO BY MISS RUSSELL,
AND THE ONLY ANSWER --.
>> JUSTICE: IN THE INFORMATION
YOU ACTUALLY DENY THAT COUNT?
>> NO, MA'AM.
I DO NOT DENY THE COUNT.
IF THE STIPULATION SAYS THAT
THEN THAT MISSTATES MY
POSITION.
I HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT I SENT
AN E-MAIL TO AN ATTORNEY.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: AND JUST TO
MAKE SURE, BECAUSE PARAGRAPH1 4
CONTINUES THAT ON APRIL 6TH YOU
SENT THE SAME FEMALE ATTORNEY
THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE.
IT WAS GREAT SEEING YOU LAST
NIGHT AND AGAIN TODAY, TOO.
YOU LOOK GOOD ENOUGH TO -- OH,
WELL, WISHFUL THINKING.
SEE YOU SOON I HOPE.
THAT WAS ALSO --
>> THAT WAS ALSO SENT.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW GO BACK
TO WHAT JUSTICE QUINCE IS
ASKING.
>> JUSTICE: WHAT WAS IT YOU
WERE DENYING IN THE ACTUAL
STIPULATION?
AS I RECALL IN THE STIPULATION
THERE IS SOME DENIAL OF COUNT 2
AND 3.
>> YES, MA'AM.
THERE WERE.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT
IN THE AGREEMENT THAT I HAD
WITH THE ATTORNEY FOR THE
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
COMMISSION WAS AND THEY
PREPARED THE STIPULATION THAT I
WOULD ADMIT COUNT 1 AND ACCEPT
PUNISHMENT FOR THAT ADMISSION
BUT THAT THERE WAS NO NEED ON
THEIR PART TO PROCEED ON COUNTS
2 AND 3 AND THERE WAS NO NEED
AT THAT POINT FOR ME TO MAKE AN
ADMISSION ON THOSE MATTERS.
AS FAR AS THE FACTS AS IT
RELATES TO COUNTS 2 AND 3 I
HAVE NEVER DENIED THOSE FACTS.

>> JUSTICE: LET ME ASK YOU THIS
ABOUT YOUR AFFIDAVIT THAT IS
ATTACHED TO THE MOTION.
>> YES, SIR.
>> JUSTICE: DID YOU OBTAIN
THOSE AFFIDAVITS?
>> NO, SIR.
MY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME DID.
I HAVE NOT.
>> JUSTICE: YOU WERE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL?
>> I WAS AND I HAVE NOT SINCE
THIS MATTER FULLY CAME TO LIGHT
HAD ANY PERSONAL CONTACT WITH
EITHER ONE OF THOSE ATTORNEYS
BOTH OF WHOM ARE NOW IN PRIVATE
PRACTICE.
AS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND
INSURANCE ATTORNEYS.
AND I HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN EITHER
ONE OF THOSE ATTORNEYS IN OVER
A YEAR.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT SO THAT
WE UNDERSTAND YOU WERE STARTING
TO SAY THAT THERE WERE -- THERE
WAS AN ALLEGATION MADE IN 2003
ABOUT A COMPLAINT FROM A FEMALE
ATTORNEY?
>> YES.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THEN YOU
HEARD NOTHING MORE?
>> THERE WAS NOTHING MORE SAID
OF THAT TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE
UNTIL 2005 WHEN IT CAME TO
JUDGE DEMERS' ATTENTION THAT
THE WEBSITES THAT I HAD
ACCESSED WERE INAPPROPRIATE,
AND --.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: AND YOU AGREE
THEY WERE INAPPROPRIATE?
>> I'M SORRY?
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU AGREE IT
WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO USE A
COURT COMPUTER?
>> IT WAS, AND IN RESPONSE TO
ONE THING YOU SAID, MADAM CHIEF
JUSTICE, THERE WAS ONE VIRUS
REPORT THAT CAME OUT ON MY
COMPUTER, AND THEN THERE WAS A
SECOND VIRUS REPORT AND IT WAS
AT THAT TIME WHEN THE SECOND
VIRUS REPORT CAME OUT THAT THE
COMPUTER WAS REMOVED FROM MY
OFFICE AND THE INAPPROPRIATE
WEBSITES ADD THAT POINT WERE
DISCOVERED.
NOT NUMEROUS.
THERE WERE TWO.
I WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP WITH
YOU.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: WELL, THERE
WERE TWO VIRUS REPORTS.
YOU ALSO ON AT LEAST TWO
OCCASIONS COURTHOUSE PERSONNEL
WERE EXPOSED WHEN THEY REPORTED
TO YOUR OFFICE TO PHYSICALLY
REMOVE VIRUSES.
>> AND THAT WAS ON THE SAME TWO
OCCASIONS.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: AND THEN ONE
OTHER OCCASION YOUR JUDICIAL
ASSISTANT WAS ALSO PRESENT AND
EXPOSED TO A PORNOGRAPHIC
WEBSITE IN YOUR OFFICE?
>> AND THAT ALLEGATION WAS
MADE, AND I HAVE NOT -- I DON'T
KNOW WHETHER THAT IS TRUE OR
NOT AND IN MY ANSWER I DID NOT
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS TRUE.
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW.
>> JUSTICE: COULD YOU EXPLAIN
TO US WHAT YOUR PENDING DUTIES
ARE NOW?
IN OTHER WORDS WHAT DIVISION OF
THE COURT ARE YOU SERVING ON A
DAY-BY-DAY BASIS?
>> YES, SIR.
I WILL.
IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR WHEN I
CAME BACK TO WORK, I WAS STILL
IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION FOR A
PERIOD OF A MONTH.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: WHEN YOU SAY
YOU CAME BACK TO WORK, WHAT HAD
HAPPENED?
>> AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT
THAT I REACHED WITH THE CHIEF
JUDGE DEMERS I WOULD TAKE A
LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO UNDERGO
CERTAIN PSYCHOLOGICAL
EVALUATION WHICH I DID.
THE EVALUATIONS CAME BACK THAT
I WAS NOT UNDER ANY TYPE OF
ADDICTION, AND AT THAT POINT I
WENT INTO COUNSELING WITH
ANOTHER ADDICTION SPECIALIST.
I HAVE REMAINED IN COUNSELING
WITH THAT PSYCHOLOGIST SINCE
THAT TIME, OVER A YEAR'S
{PEFERD}, -- PERIOD, AND I WENT
BACK TO WORK IN THE CRIMINAL
DIVISION AND THEN IN JULY.
>> JUSTICE: WHAT WAS THAT
PERIOD OF TIME?
>> FROM THE MIDDLE OF MAY
THROUGH THE END OF JUNE, A
PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS.
I STAYED IN THE CRIMINAL
DIVISION, AND THEN JULY 1ST
THERE WAS A WHOLESALE SHIFT OF
JUDGES FROM ONE DIVISION TO
ANOTHER AND I ENDED UP IN A
CIVIL DIVISION, AND I HAVE
REMAINED IN THAT CIVIL DIVISION
FOR THE LAST YEAR.
>> JUSTICE: AND THAT WHOLESALE
SHIFT WAS PART OF THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF SHIFTING DIVISIONS?
>> IT WAS AND IT WASN'T, SIR.
>> JUSTICE: WAS IT A MANDATED
BY ANY OF YOUR ACTIONS?
>> MY SHIFT IN THE MIND OF THE
CHIEF JUDGE, MIGHT HAVE BEEN AS
A RESULT OF MY ACTIONS, AND THE
SUBSEQUENT PRESS THAT MY
ACTIONS SUGGESTED OR GENERATED.

>> JUSTICE: SO WHERE ARE YOU
SITTING RIGHT NOW?
>> I'M IN THE GENERAL CIVIL
DIVISION, YES, SIR.
AND HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST
YEAR.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT REMORSE AND THIS
IS OBVIOUSLY WAS KEY TO THE
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
COMMISSION.
NOW, THERE ARE WHAT DO YOU
ATTRIBUTE NOW THE ACTIONS
TOWARDS THESE ATTORNEYS THAT
WERE APPEARING IN YOUR COURT,
JUST A LACK OF RECOGNITION THAT
BEHAVIOR LIKE THAT IS TOTALLY
INAPPROPRIATE OR SOMETHING
UNDERLYING IN YOUR PERSONALITY?

>> I DO WANT TO CORRECT ONE
THING BEFORE I RESPOND TO YOUR
QUESTION.
THE ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY
THAT MADE THE ALLEGATION IN
2003 WAS NEVER IN MY COURT.
SHE WAS NEVER ASSIGNED TO MY
CRIMINAL DIVISION.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT'S THE
ONE WHERE YOU WERE GOING TO
SOMEONE ELSE'S DIVISION TO
WATCH HER?
>> NO, ON ONE OCCASION AFTER
WORK WHILE I WAS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CRIMINAL JUDGE
IN OUR CIRCUIT, IT WAS MY
PRACTICE TO GO IN AND WATCH
VARIOUS TRIALS AS THEY WERE
GOING ON, AND ON ONE OCCASION I
WENT INTO ANOTHER JUDGE'S
COURTROOM WHILE A TRIAL WAS
GOING ON AT ABOUT 6:00 AT
NIGHT, AND THIS PARTICULAR
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY
HAPPENED TO BE ONE OF THE TWO
PROSECUTORS, UNBEKNOWNST TO ME.

>> THAT WAS JUDGE ALLAN'S
COURT?
>> YES.
{SGLU} HAD BEEN IN
COMMUNICATION WITH JUDGE ALAN
ASKING THAT THE ASSISTANT STATE
ATTORNEY ASSIGNED TO HER COURT
BE ASSIGNED TO YOURS?
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT, SIR.
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
>> THAT ALLEGATION IS NOT TRUE?

IT IS PLAIN ERROR?
>> IT IS, AND IT IS ONE OF THE
ALLEGATIONS AGAIN THAT I DID
NOT FILE A FORMAL ANSWER TO.
I FILED A MOTION ON THE COUNTS
2 AND 3.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: WELL, WHERE
YOU REPEATEDLY SENT QUICK
CONFERENCE COMPUTER MESSAGES,
WHICH I ASSUME CAN BE TRACED TO
JUDGE ALAN REGARDING SAID STATE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY'S APPEARANCE
YOU ALSO ASKED JUDGE ALAN TO
PASS THE CASE TO YOU INVOLVING
THE SAME PROSECUTOR.
NOW, IS THAT TRUE OR NOT TRUE?

>> IN RESPONSE TO PART OF YOUR
QUESTION, NUMBER ONE, THE QUICK
CONFERENCE MESSAGES CANNOT BE
TRACED BECAUSE THERE IS NO
FORMAL RECORD OF ANY OF THEM.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: SOMEBODY MUST
HAVE REPORTED THEM?
>> JUDGE ALAN DID.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: SO DO YOU
DISPUTE THE VERACITY OF JUDGE
ALAN?
>> I DISPUTE THE FACT THAT I
ASKED FOR THIS PARTICULAR
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY'S
CASES TO BE ASSIGNED TO MY
DIVISION, AND IT APPEARS TO ME
MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT ON ONE
OCCASION JUDGE ALAN HAD TWO
TRIALS READY TO GO, AND ONE
CASE INVOLVING THIS ASSISTANT
STATE ATTORNEY WAS PASSED TO ME
FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL.
I DID NOT ASK FOR IT.
IT WAS GIVEN TO ME BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CRIMINAL JUDGE.

>> JUSTICE: SO IF YOUR TERM IS
UP IN JANUARY OF 2007?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> JUSTICE: AND WHEN IS THE
QUALIFYING PERIOD IF YOU WANT?

>> IT HAS PASSED.
>> JUSTICE: AND YOU DID NOT
APPLY?
>> I DID NOT QUALIFY.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: WHEN WAS THE
QUALIFYING PERIOD?
>> MAY.
NOW, I WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE ON A
NEWLY-CREATED POSITIONS BY THE
LEGISLATURE, THERE IS A REVISED
QUALIFYING PERIOD THAT IS JULY
15TH.
I HAVE AT THIS TIME NO
INTENTION OF QUALIFYING TO RUN
FOR ELECTION.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: LET ME GO
BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE
CORRECTING ME ON SOMETHING AND
I WAS ASKING YOU WHEN YOU NOW
HAVE SEEN THIS ISSUE OF THE
WHAT YOU DID TO THE PARTICULAR
STATE ATTORNEYS AS FAR AS THE
INAPPROPRIATE CONTACT AND THE
VIEWING OF THE PORNOGRAPHY, YOU
NOW REALIZE THOSE ARE ALL
IMPROPER.
WHAT DO YOU ATTRIBUTE YOUR
HAVING DONE THIS WHILE A JUDGE
SERVING THE STATE OF FLORIDA?
>> I ATTRIBUTE MY ACTIONS
TOWARDS THE TWO FEMALE
ATTORNEYS ON THE FIRST INSTANCE
AS ONE AS MAYBE AN OVERACTIVE
MENTOR TOWARDS HER.
ON THE SECOND ONE IT WAS A
SITUATION WHERE I WAS TRYING TO
GET TO KNOW THIS ATTORNEY
BETTER ON A SOCIAL LEVEL, WHICH
CERTAINLY WAS INAPPROPRIATE ON
MY PART WHILE I WAS, WHILE SHE
HAD CASES THAT WERE PENDING IN
FRONT OF ME, AND I ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT AND I ADMIT THAT.
WITH REGARD TO THE PORNOGRAPHY,
I WOULD SAY THAT AGAIN MY
ACTIONS WERE TOTALLY
INAPPROPRIATE.
I DID NOT USE GOOD JUDGMENT,
AND IT CAME MORE FROM A
CURIOSITY ON MY PART AS TO WHAT
IS OUT THERE THAN ANYTHING
ELSE.
>> JUSTICE: WELL, YOUR TENURE
CONTINUING THROUGH JANUARY 1ST
IN THE CIVIL DIVISION YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE ATTORNEYS WHO ARE
WOMEN APPEARING IN YOUR COURT.

>> YES, SIR.
>> JUSTICE: SHOULD WE BE
CONCERNED WHETHER YOU ARE GOING
TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF CONDUCT
GOING ON IN YOUR COURT BETWEEN
NOW AND JANUARY?
>> NO, SIR, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE
THAT CONCERN, AND I SAY THAT
FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
NUMBER ONE, I'VE BEEN A JUDGE
FOR THE LAST 21 YEARS.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FORMAL
SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT
FILED AGAINST ME BY ANY FEMALE
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WHO HAS
APPEARED IN FRONT OF ME.
>> JUSTICE: THAT TO ME REALLY
DOES NOT AMOUNT TO AN
EXPLANATION OF ANYTHING,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN
IN MANY COURT ROOMS IN THIS
STATE AND I HAVE WITNESSED
INSTANCES IN WHICH THERE ARE
STATEMENTS MADE BY JUDGES THAT
HAVE A TREMENDOUS INFLUENCE ON
THE LAWYER BUT THE LAWYERS ARE
NOT IN A POSITION TO FILE A
COMPLAINT IF THE JUDGE IS GOING
TO BE CONTINUING TO SIT ON
THEIR CASES.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION,
SIR, AND I WOULD POINT OUT TO
YOU THAT WITH REGARD TO THE
ATTORNEY THAT I SENT THE
E-MAILS TO AS WAS SET FORTH IN
HER AFFIDAVIT, THAT AFTER THIS
SITUATION CAME TO LIGHT IN THE
ST. PETERSBURG TIMES THAT
PARTICULAR ATTORNEY HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY, OCCASION TO APPEAR
IN FRONT OF ME AS A DEFENSE
ATTORNEY.
AT THE TIME THEN I SAW HER I
CALLED THE STATE ATTORNEY AND
HER UP TO THE BENCH AND ON THE
RECORD I SAID TO HER IF SHE
WOULD LIKE FOR ME IN LIGHT OF
WHAT'S BEEN IN THE PAPER FOR ME
TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM HER CASE
AND ON THE RECORD IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY
SHE SAID, NO, AND I CONTINUED
ON THAT PARTICULAR CASE.
IT WAS A PRETRIAL AND IT DIDN'T
GET SET FOR TRIAL.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT, JUDGE
DOWNEY, WHAT JUSTICE WELLS IS
SAYING AND YOU'VE GOT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE A JUDGE HAS
ENORMOUS POWER.
WE CONTINUE TO HEAR OF
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
SITUATIONS WHERE AN
UNIDENTIFIED THAT WOMEN FEEL
THAT THEY ARE TREATED IN WAYS
THAT A MALE COLLEAGUE WOULD
NEVER BE TREATED, AND THEY ARE
REALLY, AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IF
THEY ARE YOUNG WOMEN, NOT IN A
POSITION TO GO AHEAD AND FILE A
SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT.
IT IS NOT EVEN -- THAT WOULDN'T
EVEN BE, IT IS NOT AN
EMPLOYMENT SITUATION.
THEY ARE AN ATTORNEY, AND YOU
ACKNOWLEDGE AND I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CLEAR ON
THIS.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS
COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE TO PUT
A PERSON APPEARING BEFORE YOU
IN ANY POSITION OTHER THAN
TREATING THEM AS ANY OTHER
LAWYER THAT YOU WOULD, AND THE
ACTIONS OF COMPLAINTS BEFORE
FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS WHETHER
IT IS OR ISN'T, IS NOT THE
ISSUE BEFORE US NOW?
>> ABSOLUTELY I CAN ASSURE YOU
THAT NO ATTORNEY, MALE OR
FEMALE WHO APPEARS IN FRONT OF
ME, WILL BE TREATED IN ANY WAY
OTHER THAN WITH FAIRNESS AND
COURTESY.
I WOULD POINT OUT, MADAM CHIEF
JUSTICE, THAT I HAVE THREE
SISTERS, I HAVE THREE
DAUGHTERS.
WHILE I WAS IN THE ARMY RESERVE
I WAS A LECTURER IN THE AREA OF
SENSITIVITY TRAINING AND SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE
MILITARY.
UNFORTUNATELY, I FORGOT PART OF
THAT TRAINING.
AS IT RELATES TO THESE TWO
WOMEN.
I DEEPLY REGRET IT.
I REGRET HAVING CERTAINLY TO BE
HERE AND TO WASTE YOUR TIME
WITH THIS.
THIS WHOLE MATTER HAS BEEN, AS
YOU CAN IMAGINE EXTREMELY
EMBARRASSING AND FINANCIALLY
RUINOUS ON ME.
THIS SITUATION HAS COST ME IN
EXCESS OF $1 MILLION IN LOST
BENEFITS AND SALARY, AND TO
THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT I WOULD
WILL THAT UPON MY FAMILY AND
NOT BE REGRETFUL.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: ON THIS ISSUE
OF YOU SAY LOST BENEFITS AND
SALARY YOU ARE GOING TO BE --
ARE YOU ELIGIBLE IN JANUARY FOR
RETIREMENT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: SO YOU ARE
GOING TO GET RETIREMENT?
>> I WILL RECEIVE MY
RETIREMENT.
I BASE THAT UPON ABOUT $600,000
LOST FROM THE DROP PROGRAM THAT
I WILL NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE: WHICH
PROGRAM?
>> THE DROP PROGRAM.
ONE OF THE RETIREMENT PROGRAMS
THAT ALLOWS JUDGES ONCE THEY
REACH 62 OR 30 YEARS TO
PARTICIPATE IN A PROGRAM
RELATING TO THEIR RETIREMENT,
AND FURTHER I BASE THAT UPON
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY
JUDICIAL PAY AND THE RETIREMENT
BENEFITS THAT I WILL RECEIVE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU, JUDGE DOWNEY, FOR
APPEARING BEFORE US.
IS THERE ANY OTHER
CLARIFICATION AS WE ARE OUT OF
TIME.
JUST IF YOU NEED SOMETHING.
WHY DON'T YOU JUST THEN SO WE
CAN HEAR YOU.
>> FIRST, THE COMMENT BY
JUSTICE QUINCE ABOUT DENIAL OF
THE ALLEGATION, THAT WORD MORE
APPROPRIATELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN
THE CONCLUSIONS AS WE HAVE
HEARD THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
ARE NOT WHAT WAS BEING DENIED.

IT WAS THE LEGAL CONCLUSION TO
BE DRAWN FROM THERE AND THEN
BOTH JUSTICE PARIENTE AND
JUSTICE WELLS YOU ASKED VERY
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENS NOW IF THERE IS
SOMETHING THAT OCCURS WRONG IN
JUDGE DOWNEY'S COURTROOM.
THE STIPULATION DOES ADDRESS
THAT BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW HE HAS
ALREADY SIGNED A LETTER OF
RESIGNATION UPON ANY FURTHER
MISCONDUCT THAT LETTER OF
RESIGNATION IMMEDIATELY TAKES
EFFECT AND THE JUDGE WILL BE
RESIGNED FROM HIS OFFICE ON ANY
MISCONDUCT.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THE LETTER
OF APOLOGY WAITING FOR OUR
STIPULATION TO BE APPROVED?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
THE COURT WILL BE IN RECESS.
>> THE MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE.