Justice, Colorado Style.

What exactly is entailed in a Judicial Censure? How does it impact the career of a judge? Is it supposed to be so severe that the Judge who is censured is in danger of losing their job?

Tim Masters served 10 years because of the improper ( illegal?? ) actions of two prosecutors. Now they’re both Judges.

Tim is free. But he is a convicted felon with 10 years in jail. And these Judges, they are paying for their impropriety with a Judicial Censure.

What is a Judicial Censure in Colorado? How will it impact them both? Is it enough?

This is in The Pit because the language and emotions could fly fast and hot.

Cartooniverse

I don’t know exactly how things work in Colorado, and it appears that though the censures here were against attorneys who are now Judges, they were made by the attorney disciplinary authorities, not the judicial conduct authorities.

In attorney discipline (and similarly in judicial discipline), there are usually several levels of punishment. The most serious is disbarment (or removal from the bench), which permanently removes someone’s right to practice law (or be a judge), though some states permit disbarred attorneys to reapply for admission after a specified time and under appropriate circumstances. Less severe than disbarment is suspension, under which a person’s right to practice law is suspended for a specified period, the length of which depends on the severity of the offense and any mitigating factors the disciplinary authorities take into account.

The less severe level of discipline is public censure, in which the disciplinary authorities reprimand an attorney or judge for his or her misconduct. (Some states also have private censure, where for minor infractions the authorities will advise the attorney of the misconduct, but not make it publicly available.) In New York, all public attorney discipline is available on the legal databases and (for downstate at least) published in the New York Law Journal (a legal daily newspaper).

In one sense, a public (or private) censure has no effect whatsoever. The attorney can go on practicing law (or serving as a judge) just as before, though it is a clear black mark on the attorney’s record. If, however, an attorney comes before the disciplinary authorities again, they will take prior censures into account. In addition, the attorney will likely have to disclose the censure if he or she seeks to be admitted to any other state or federal bars, and on other similar applications. For judges, it is something that can be used against the judge in election campaigns, and, for appointed judges, it will be taken into account in reappointment or appointment to higher judicial office.

It should be pointed out that we don’t know that he didn’t do it. We just don’t know that he did.

Anyway, he’ll file a civil suit and probably win a pot of money.

Which, in a justice system based on the notion of “innocent until proven guilty,” is precisely the point.

To him, yes, and obviously he wasn’t fairly proven guilty. The fact remains that he may actually have been guilty, though.

The physical evidence in the case actually points away from Masters. That’s the whole reason these judges are being censured.

How is this different from every person ever accused of a crime?

Upon first reading of the OP I could have sworn he said “… but he didn’t do it.”

I was responding to an imaginary assertion. :smack: