08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

petitioner’s appeal or to other trial judges for the purpose of securing a prejudiced
outcome in related litigation, the respondent is violating Canon 3B.
“Canon 3B(9) also plainly states that a judge's public comments are
restricted while a proceeding is pending or impending "in any court." Given
this unambiguous language, we conclude that Canon 3B(9)'s limitations on
public comments apply where a trial judge comments on a matter that is
before another trial judge or has been taken to an appellate court. See, e.g.,
Broadman v. Commission, 18 Cal. 4th 1079, 959 P.2d 715, 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d
408 (1998); In re Inquiry of Broadbelt, 146 N.J. 501, 683 A.2d 543 (1996);
Matter of Hey, supra; Ryan v. Com'n on Judicial Performance, 45 Cal. 3d
518, 754 P.2d 724, 247 Cal. Rptr. 378 (1988). In limiting the scope of
commentary regarding pending cases in any court, the rule precludes the
possibility of undue influence on the judicial process and the threat to public
confidence posed by a judge from one court or jurisdiction criticizing the
rulings or technique of a judge from a different jurisdiction. See In re Inquiry
of Broadbelt, supra. Such comments could affect the outcome of the case,
appear to exert pressure on a judge to decide a certain way, and undermine
public confidence in judicial decisions. See id.”
In re Complaint Against White, 264 Neb. 740 at 67-68 (NE, 2002).
At the very least the respondent’s admonishments and threats of sanctions
are a violation of Canon 3A:
“(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom he deals in his official capacity . .
..' (Rule No. 601, 214 Kan. xciv-xcv.)”
Rome, In re, 542 P.2d 676, 218 Kan. 198 (Kan., 1975).
This circuit has the leading federal case In re Charge of Judicial
Misconduct 47 F.3d 399 for addressing the circumstances where a trial judge
actually becomes involved in procuring an outcome through extrinsic conduct and
has determined such conduct violates Canon 2:
“Canon 2 provided at the time of the events in question that "[a] judge should
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's
29
08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5724