In this issue...

In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Canons 3B(10) and 4A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, §1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, it is the Commission's decision to issue a PUBLIC ADMONITION AND ORDER OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION to the Honorable Michelle Slaughter, Judge of the 405th District Court, Galveston, Galveston County, Texas.

Judge Slaughter then REALLY disappointed me by trying to pull a "Ted Cruz" by defending her actions to her Tea Party fans with a laughably bogus argument that invokes the Constitution but defies common sense and the law.  Judge Slaughter claims she was merely exercising her First Amendment rights.  If Judge Slaughter catches a juror tweeting about a trial, I wonder if she will have the same attitude and do nothing about it. 


Click here to read what Slaughter posted on Facebook and on her web site, which says in part:

My Fellow Galveston County Residents,

The Commission on Judicial Conduct has issued a public admonition in my case based on truthful, objective statements regarding publicly-available information that I posted on my Facebook page. I respectfully disagree with the Commission's action, and for several reasons I will seek review by a higher court.

First, and foremost, I believe that the public has a right to know what judges and courts do.  In Texas, voters elect judges, and taxpayers pay our salaries and the costs of maintaining the court system. The people should know what we do and how we do it. Social media can be very useful for communicating that information to the public.
....
To help protect that important public interest, to uphold the right of judges to use social media to provide truthful, objective information to the public, and to help clarify the guidelines on use of social media by Texas judges, I intend to vigorously pursue the appeal of my case to a court of special review. This is an issue of transparency and First Amendment rights.

I will be represented by Chip Babcock (who successfully represented Justice Hecht in overturning the Commission's public admonition), of Jackson Walker L.L.P.; legal ethics expert Chuck Herring, of Herring & Irwin, L.L.P.; and Bob Warneke, former General Counsel of the Commission on Judicial Conduct.  

 

If Judge Slaughter did indeed post comments about this criminal case while the trial was going on and if she mentioned information that was not in evidence, she acted terribly improperly and no big shot lawyers and no constitutional argument will help help her out of the mess she created for herself.  Slaughter simply should have acted like the good judge she usually is  and paid attention to the trial instead of her social media accounts on her smart phone.  Any litigant, but certainly a criminal defendant, deserves a judge who does not make posts about an on-going trial, much less posts about matters that have not even been admitted into evidence in the trial. 

Even before yesterday, Slaughter's argument that she was simply exercising her right to freely express herself was embarrassingly inane.  Of course, a judge has the general right to write whatever she wants to say on her Facebook page.  But, her duty as a judge and the ethical rules that govern her conduct properly prevent her from writing some things, especially those that threaten the integrity of the justice system or a litigant's civil rights.  Unfortunately for Judge Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday issued an opinion by Republican Chief Justice Roberts that very clearly says that a state's judicial ethics rules can limit a judge's freedom of expression in order to protect public confidence in the judiciary.  Click here to read Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, that upheld the state's right to prohibit judges from personally soliciting campaign contributions.

Slaughter is going to embarrass herself further by fighting this reprimand and she will just bring more public attention to her indefensible behavior.  Her posting of inappropriate comments was a momentary mistake made in a brief second.  That error is not nearly egregious as her on-going effort to try to excuse her behavior.  Slaughter is way too smart to think that she has a First Amendment right to act unethically or violate a defendant's rights.  Slaughter's various written defenses fail to quote the Commission's reprimand and she does not reveal to her gullible followers exactly what she posted. If she continues making this defense, Judge Slaughter is knowingly misleading the public and that is an even worse sin.