Georgia Supreme Court Stays Removal of Indicted Judge Mack Crawford
Crawford claims the panel that recommended his removal was improperly appointed.
July 25, 2019 at 06:58 PM
3 minute read
The Supreme Court of Georgia is delaying a decision on whether to permanently remove a suspended superior court judge facing a criminal indictment until the state Court of Appeals decides whether the state judicial watchdog that recommended the action is legal.
The high court's decision postpones the removal of Pike County Superior Court Judge Robert “Mack” Crawford, a former state legislator, from his judicial post for ethics violations associated with the December 2017 theft of more than $15,000 from his court's registry. The JQC suspended Crawford with pay in December, and its hearing panel recommended Crawford's removal in April after a two-day ethics hearing.
Crawford's lawyers attempted to stop the ethics hearing that resulted in the removal recommendation by filing a quo warranto petition contending that JQC members were improperly appointed and, as a result, are acting illegally in conducting the ethics hearing. They lost that contest when Cobb County Superior Court Judge Ann Harris upheld the JQC appointments, sparking Crawford's appealed.
Crawford's attorneys—former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes of The Barnes Law Group and Zebulon lawyer Virgil Brown—also filed a formal exception to the JQC removal recommendation with the Georgia Supreme Court in May.
The court ruled Tuesday that the pending appeal and Crawford's formal exception to his removal, which includes identical arguments that the JQC was illegally constituted, require a stay on whether he should be removed from office.
“The issue of the valid composition of the JQC clearly is a threshold question, and its resolution will determine the subsequent course of this matter,” the high court said.
Because the JQC hearing panel took no evidence and heard no testimony on the issue of the validity of the nominations to the JQC, “The record before this court on this issue is devoid of any evidentiary basis upon which to base any meaningful appellate review,” the high court ruled. “In contrast, the record on appeal in the quo warranto action before the Court of Appeals will contain all the pleadings and orders, including the trial court's lengthy and thorough final order, as well as the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits introduced at the hearing. And the Court of Appeals' decision will be subject to possible review by this Court through the certiorari process, thus avoiding the possibility of conflicting rulings.”
The JQC filed ethics charges against Crawford in September 2018, before he was indicted on two felony charges—theft and violating his oath of office. A trial has not been scheduled.
But the JQC proceeded with the ethics hearing after suspending Crawford from the bench with pay in December.
After the JQC panel held that Crawford “did not respect or comply with the law” when he directed a court clerk to give him a check for $15,675 belonging to his former clients and recommended that he be stripped of his judicial post, Crawford protested to the high court. The Supreme Court must approve the JQC's disciplinary recommendations.
The JQC panel members include Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Robert McBurney, attorney Jamala McFadden of Atlanta's McFadden Davis and Cobb County Police Chief Michael Register.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCarrier Legal Chief Departs for GC Post at Defense Giant Lockheed Martin
A Looming Seismic Shift in the Rules of Evidence: The Far-Reaching Impact of Diaz v. United States
9 minute readMike Lynch's Brush With Prison Taught Him Life Is Precious. Then a Yacht Accident Proved Him Right
How Defense Attorneys Can Prepare for the Possibility of a Nuclear Verdict
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250