Judge Contini reprimanded
Judge Contini reprimanded
Judge John P. Contini will be publicly reprimanded and must hand deliver a written apology letter for engaging in ex parte communications and making belittling remarks in open court.
Acting November 10 in case no. SC15-2148, the court also ordered the 17th Circuit judge to continue active judicial mentoring for three years, set up and complete a stress management program, and pay the costs of his disciplinary proceedings.
On October 9, 2015, the Judicial Qualifications Commission filed a notice of formal charges against Judge Contini for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), 3B(7), 3B(9), and 3E(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct for:
• Sending an ex parte email to the Broward Public Defender’s Office;
• Failing to seek a recusal or transfer when an appeal effectively froze his division; and
• Making impertinent and belittling remarks in open court about a pending matter.
During his first day of attendance at Phase I of Florida’s Judicial College, in March 2015, Judge Contini sent the Broward Public Defender’s Office an ex parte email that contained suggestions for the use of a proposed order as a general template for downward departure motions. He neither copied nor forwarded the email to the Broward State Attorney’s Office at that time. Instead, Judge Contini waited seven days, until he returned home to the bench after attending the Judicial College, to distribute the order to several state attorneys. When the State Attorney’s Office became aware of the ex parte communication, the state filed a motion to disqualify Judge Contini from all open pending criminal cases. Judge Contini denied that motion as legally insufficient.
As a result, on April 9, 2015, the state, through the Attorney General’s Office, petitioned the Fourth District Court of Appeal for a writ of prohibition seeking to disqualify Judge Contini from a list of 962 cases. On June 10, 2015, the Fourth DCA issued an order to show cause concerning the writ, which stayed further proceedings in the cases. Although there was no formal stay in effect until the show cause order was issued, the court said all parties acted as though a stay was in effect between March 26 and June 10.
“Judge Contini’s division — the criminal division — was essentially frozen, yet he neither recused himself sua sponte nor sought an administrative transfer,” the court said. “Instead, he remained within the division hoping for personal vindication.”
When the JQC served Judge Contini with a notice of investigation with regard to his ex parte email, the judge acknowledged that the email was a “serious mistake” and explained that he denied the disqualification motion because the ex parte email — while improper — was general in nature and unrelated to any particular case. Still, Judge Contini appeared before the JQC investigative panel on June 5, 2015, offered “no excuses,” and apologized for his conduct. The JQC took his testimony under advisement, but did not vote on whether to pursue formal charges.
“It appears that Judge Contini became increasingly frustrated until he lost his temper in open court during August 11 and 12, 2015, hearings,” the court said. “In one instance, he said, ‘And if a prosecutor, someone with the AG’s office, wants to put that person’s case on their disingenuous list of cases that are pending sentencing, that’s a lie from the pit of hell, and that is a fraud on the Fourth [District].’ He wished that the Fourth District would ‘spank the person who put [a case on the] disingenuous list’ and ‘ream out the idiot who put [that case] on the list.’”
The assistant attorney general who signed the initial list, Heidi Bettendorf, was not present. However, the court said Judge Contini chastised her by name for “misleading” and committing “fraud on the Fourth [District].” In another instance, Judge Contini threatened a state attorney with contempt while raising his voice and accusing him of inappropriate behavior. The court said Judge Contini demanded that the state attorney admit to assisting Bettendorf with the creation of the list and ordered bailiffs to escort the attorney from the courtroom after the exchange.
Following the August 11 and 12 exchanges, Judge Contini sought an administrative transfer. Before filing formal charges, the JQC held a second investigative hearing during which Judge Contini explained that he disagreed with the state’s list of cases, but he admitted that he “personified incivility” and offered “no excuses.” After a final hearing, the JQC issued its findings, conclusions, and recommendations, which Judge Contini expressly accepted.
The JQC determined that “Judge Contini was a new judge, who underestimated the process of transitioning from a well-respected, professional lawyer to a judge, and made a series of significant missteps.”
However, the JQC did not recommend suspension or removal for this misconduct. Due to the nature of Judge Contini’s variegated infractions, and the mitigating factors in this case, the JQC reasoned that a public reprimand plus conditions were appropriate.
The court agreed.
“Were it not for the mitigating circumstances and Judge Contini’s full and complete cooperation with the JQC, this court could have considered more severe sanctions,” the court said. “In light of Judge Contini’s actions, the relevant caselaw, and the mitigating factors, these sanctions and conditions imposed today are fitting and appropriate.”
