Newark City Judge Faces Ethics Charges Over Litigant's Lengthy Jail Stay
The state Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct filed the complaint against Newark Municipal Court Judge Marvin Adames.
December 03, 2018 at 02:32 PM
4 minute read
A Newark municipal court judge is facing disciplinary charges for having a woman jailed for 23 days for supposedly being disrespectful to him in the courtroom in a landlord-tenant matter.
The New Jersey Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct filed the complaint against Newark Municipal Court Judge Marvin Adames.
ACJC Counsel Maureen Bauman said in the complaint—dated Nov. 27 and made public several days later—that Adames should be disciplined because he ordered the woman, Linda Lacey, to be jailed over an issue that didn't justify incarceration.
According to the complaint, Lacey spent a total of 23 days in the Essex County jail over the Christmas 2016 holiday season because Adames believed she was “disrespecting” the court and needed a mental health evaluation—which was never conducted.
Lacey first encountered Adames on Nov. 17, 2016, in the landlord-tenant dispute that led to a petty disorderly persons complaint, the ACJC said. The apartment owner apparently wanted to evict Lacey and show the apartment, but Lacey refused to cooperate, according to the complaint.
Lacey, it seems, was at least somewhat uncooperative in court.
“I'm starting to believe, based on my experience, that you have some mental condition,” Adames told Lacey, adding that he planned to hold her in contempt pending a psychiatric evaluation by county authorities, according to the complaint.
“You must have some mental condition, ma'am,” the judge said, according to the complaint.
He then put Lacey in a holding cell before releasing her and scheduling another hearing date for Dec. 16, 2016, the complaint said.
At the Dec. 16 hearing, Lacey's attorney asked to be relieved as counsel, and Adames granted the request, the complaint said.
Lacey again appeared to be uncooperative. “You're being disrespectful,” Adames said, according to the ACJC. “You're a very intelligent woman. You're a very well-dressed woman. You're well put together. But you're doing nothing but playing games.”
Adames then ordered Lacey detained in the county jail pending the psychiatric evaluation and set a contempt hearing for Dec. 23, 2016. He set bail, which Lacey could not meet, the complaint said.
At the Dec. 23 hearing, Adames learned that there had been no psychiatric evaluation and he rescheduled the hearing for Jan. 5, 2017. Lacey remained behind bars in the interim.
At a Jan. 3, 2017, hearing Adames acknowledged that Lacey had been held in jail longer than was necessary, and said he would order her release after dismissing the contempt charge and disorderly persons complaint.
Adames, according to the complaint, said the “system hasn't worked the way it's supposed to work.”
Still, Lacey wasn't released until a few days later—Jan. 7.
The complaint said Adames told ethics investigators he ordered Lacey held in jail because he feared that she would skip further court appearances.
The ACJC alleges that Adames violated the Codes of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct by having Lacey jailed for a period longer necessary for the charges she faced, and for failing to follow proper procedures when he ordered the psychiatric evaluation that never occurred.
Adames, the complaint said, abused his authority by having Lacey remain in jail for 23 days.
Attempts to reach Adames were unsuccessful, and it was not immediately clear whether he has retained an attorney.
Adames, admitted in New Jersey in 2000, remained on the Newark Municipal Court as of the complaint date, the document said.
The complaint does not recommend a specific quantum of discipline being sought.
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 AllConstruction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
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