New Jersey Judge Facing Ethics Charges Seeks to Recuse 2 NJ Supreme Court Justices
A New Jersey judge facing a Supreme Court hearing on charges he made inappropriate comments to jurors and about other judges is asking that two members of the New Jersey Supreme Court recuse themselves due to alleged bias.
Superior Court Judge Wilbur Mathesius filed a motion on Aug. 23, 2006 urging that Chief Justice Deborah Poritz and Justice Jaynee LaVecchia not participate in his disciplinary case because they have criticized him in the past. Mathesius is challenging the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct's findings that he committed ethics violations the committee said warranted a six-month suspension, half without pay.
At issue is Mathesius' conduct in Mercer County's Criminal Part in 2004 and 2005 and conduct resulting in two admonitions while he was a municipal court judge. ACJC Chairman Alan Handler found that ethics prosecutors proved by clear and convincing evidence allegations in a four-count complaint charging that Mathesius:
• berated a jury for acquitting a defendant of illegal handgun possession;
• talked ex parte to jurors in the midst of deliberations in a murder case;
• made derogatory comments, some in public, about appellate judges; and
• made gratuitous remarks that show bias about cases or defendants.
A September 25, 2006 hearing is scheduled, but Mathesius argues that Justices Poritz and LaVecchia should not be sitting. In Mathesius' certification that he filed supporting his recusal motion, he claims both justices have accused him or made findings of wrongdoing, which means they are predisposed to find against him.
We will report further on the outcome of this hearing.
Superior Court Judge Wilbur Mathesius filed a motion on Aug. 23, 2006 urging that Chief Justice Deborah Poritz and Justice Jaynee LaVecchia not participate in his disciplinary case because they have criticized him in the past. Mathesius is challenging the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct's findings that he committed ethics violations the committee said warranted a six-month suspension, half without pay.
At issue is Mathesius' conduct in Mercer County's Criminal Part in 2004 and 2005 and conduct resulting in two admonitions while he was a municipal court judge. ACJC Chairman Alan Handler found that ethics prosecutors proved by clear and convincing evidence allegations in a four-count complaint charging that Mathesius:
• berated a jury for acquitting a defendant of illegal handgun possession;
• talked ex parte to jurors in the midst of deliberations in a murder case;
• made derogatory comments, some in public, about appellate judges; and
• made gratuitous remarks that show bias about cases or defendants.
A September 25, 2006 hearing is scheduled, but Mathesius argues that Justices Poritz and LaVecchia should not be sitting. In Mathesius' certification that he filed supporting his recusal motion, he claims both justices have accused him or made findings of wrongdoing, which means they are predisposed to find against him.
We will report further on the outcome of this hearing.
Comments