|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|In Re: Honorable Vance D. Day|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Victoria D Blachly, Darlene D Pasieczny and Timothy R Volpert on behalf of Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability |
Janet M Schroer, James Bopp and Anita Y Milanovich on behalf of Vance D Day
Statement of Issues:
| Respondent is a Marion County Circuit Court judge against whom the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability filed a complaint that alleged 13 counts of misconduct covering a variety of incidents. Following a hearing, the commission determined that clear and convincing evidence supported eight counts, and it recommended that respondent be removed from the bench. The Code of Judicial Conduct rules at issue involve promoting confidence in the judiciary (ensuring integrity and impartiality; not committing criminal act; not engaging in conduct reflecting adversely on judicial character; and not engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation); as well avoiding misuse of prestige of office; acting appropriately toward litigants and prohibiting ex partecontact; cooperating with commission; and not manifesting bias or prejudice in the exercise of judicial duties. The issues include:|
(1) Whether almost all counts should be dismissed, due to lack of commission authority.
(2) Whether Counts 1 and 2 should be dismissed, due to lack of commission authority to revive previously dismissed initiating complaint.
(3) Whether the Supreme Court should strike the testimony of the key witness, based on asserted due process violations.
(4) Whether the commission may recommend rule violation determinations not alleged in its complaint.
(5) As to each count, whether the commission presented clear and convincing evidence to prove the alleged and recommended violations.
(6) As to all counts, whether various procedural rules, and the commission's purported failure to follow its own rules, violated procedural due process.
(7) As to Counts 9 and 12, whether the ethical rules at issue violate other constitutional provisions and the federal Civil Rights Act.
(8) If one or more violations were proved by clear and convincing evidence, the appropriate sanction.
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: