Supreme Court suspends Seminole County judge
The Florida Supreme Court has ordered Seminole County Judge Wayne Culver to be suspended without pay for 60 days and be publicly reprimanded for “engaging in abusive and intemperate conduct during two separate court proceedings.”
The court said it also expects Culver to continue to seek necessary mental health counseling and anger and stress management treatment, although it did not order him to do so.
Acting November 27 in Case No. SC2022-0846, the court accepted the Judicial Qualifications Commission finding that Judge Culver violated Canons 1, 2, 3B(2), 3B(4), and 3B(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, that together require judges to conduct themselves with integrity; to be patient, dignified, and courteous toward others in official settings; and to be faithful to and maintain professional competence in the law.
The JQC’s hearing panel considered three charges alleging intemperate conduct in separate incidents that occurred on January 25, February 9, and February 10, 2022, during Judge Culver’s second year on the county bench.
On February 9, Samuel Perez appeared before Judge Culver at a hearing to determine whether Perez had violated an injunction requiring him to complete a “batterer’s intervention program.” The JQC found that Perez “was polite and respectful at the hearing, and apologetic for failing to complete the [program] earlier.” Judge Culver “nevertheless found him in direct criminal contempt based on failure to complete the [program], sentenced him to the maximum 179 days in jail, and had Mr. Perez summarily taken into custody.” Judge Culver cut off Perez when he latter asked to address the court. A woman seated in the gallery stood up and began to address the court, but within a few seconds Judge Culver told her: “Ma’am, sit down or you’re going to go into custody as well.” The Fifth District Court of Appeal later concluded that Judge Culver’s handling of the contempt proceeding violated the governing rules of procedure, in part by failing to offer Perez a meaningful opportunity to present mitigation testimony. After Perez had already spent more than a month in jail, the DCA granted an emergency habeas petition for his release.
The day after the hearing in the Perez case, Kevin Newton was scheduled to appear before Judge Culver. Newton entered the courtroom while a different hearing was underway, and he could not find a seat. According to the JQC, “Judge Culver noticed him, and yelled in a loud, aggressive voice, ‘Sir, I’m doing something here. Could you shut up and sit down.’” Newton responded that he was trying to find a seat. To which Judge Culver replied: “That’s not shutting up. You want to be held in contempt and go to jail? I asked you a f*****g question, a*****e.” Newton answered, “No, Sir,” and Judge Culver said, “Then shut up.”
The JQC said at his disciplinary hearing, “Judge Culver admitted shocking himself by his use of profanity, and that members of the public would rightly be appalled.”
Judge Culver did not contest the factual findings.
“It is self-evident that Judge Culver’s profane outburst at Mr. Newton violated the canons,” the justices said. “As to the other February 2022 incident, while the Commission was right to acknowledge that ‘[t]here is a fine line between legal error (addressed by appellate courts) and violation of the judicial canons (addressed in disciplinary proceedings),’ we agree that Judge Culver’s handling of Mr. Perez’s contempt hearing crossed that line.”
The court said Judge Culver’s behavior toward Newton was “so unacceptable, and so potentially corrosive of public confidence in the judiciary, as to render Judge Culver a candidate for removal from the bench.”
But, the court said, the JQC heard mitigating evidence that it described as “overwhelming,” including that Culver’s misconduct occurred over a brief period during which he experienced “intense personal pressure and loss” while he cared for his imminently dying father. The state attorney, a public defender, and several judges also testified on the judge’s behalf.
Though each witness acknowledged that Judge Culver had committed misconduct here, they said that they “had never seen him engage in this type of behavior before or since.” The evidence further showed Judge Culver voluntarily received mental health counseling for the past two years, and that he has been remorseful and cooperative throughout the disciplinary process.
Based on the testimony it heard, the JQC came to believe that Culver “is genuinely contrite, has learned from this experience, and continues to be effective as a judge” and was persuaded that Judge Culver’s misconduct is unlikely to reoccur.
“Although we expect that Judge Culver will continue to seek necessary mental health counseling, we do not order him to do so, because the Florida Constitution lists the allowable disciplinary sanctions as ‘reprimand, fine, suspension with or without pay, or lawyer discipline.’”
