*Editor's note: This report was updated on July 10 and 11 with comments from attorneys involved in the individual cases.

A pair of New Jersey judges have become the subject of national news coverage, as well as calls that they step down, because of how they handled sexual assault cases.

The two Family Part judges, James Troiano of Monmouth County Superior Court, sitting on recall, and Marcia Silva of Middlesex County Superior Court, had their adjudication of two separate cases, and the reversals of their rulings on appeal, detailed in a New York Times report on July 2.

On July 3, New Jersey Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, issued a statement calling for each judge to be removed, and for the state judiciary to institute a program to educate judges on how to handle cases involving sexual misconduct.

Weinberg said “both judges should be removed immediately from their seats” and “we should take additional corrective measures and require comprehensive training to manage cases of sexual assault for all judges.”

“This would be similar to supplemental training we already require for judges and judicial personnel involved in processing domestic violence complaints,” she said.

Several other lawmakers have since joined in calling for the removal of the two judges.

The case involving Troiano is State in the Interest of G.M.C., where a 16-year-old boy is accused of raping a 16-year-old girl at a party while the girl was drunk and incapacitated, taking cellphone video of the assault, and sharing that video with friends. Prosecutors sought to waive the boy, referred to only as G.M.C. in court documents, to criminal court to be adjudicated as an adult. Troiano denied that motion on July 30, 2018. In his stated reasons, according  to court documents, he ruled that prosecutors failed to account for the impact on the boy in seeking a waiver, saying: “[T]his young man comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school where he was doing extremely well. … He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college. His scores for college entry were very high.” The judge also questioned parts of the evidence, including whether the incident was, in fact, a rape.

The Appellate Division on June 14 reversed. The panel said in a per curiam decision: “His consideration of these elements … sounded as if he had conducted a bench trial on the charges rather than neutrally reviewed the State's application.” The panel added: “The judge also accorded great weight to the fact that G.M.C. might have reasonably believed that [the victim] wanted to engage in sexual intercourse—without taking into consideration her level of intoxication—essentially accepting G.M.C.'s defense theory as would the finder of fact at a trial.” The panel also said: “That the juvenile came from a good family and had good test scores we assume would not condemn the juveniles who do not come from good families and do not have good test scores from withstanding waiver applications.”

The case involving Silva is State in the Interest of E.R.M., where a 16-year-old boy is accused of raping a 12-year-old girl during the time when their families shared a home. Silva denied prosecutors' motion to waive the matter to criminal court for the boy, referred to as E.R.M., to be adjudicated as an adult. In her Aug. 30, 2018, ruling, taking the victim's statement as true, Silva reasoned, according to court documents, that “the offense is not an especially heinous or cruel offense beyond the elements of the crimes that the waiver statute intends to target. The victim claimed that the [j]uvenile pushed her, grabbed her hands, removed her clothing and then penetrated her without her actual consent. As a result, she lost her virginity and bled, which the State considered as well. However, beyond losing her virginity, the State did not claim that the victim suffered any further injuries, either physical, mental or emotional. During [o]ral [a]rgument, the State questioned who decides the heinousness of a crime, and the answer is the Legislature and the [c]ourt, especially when it is clear that the State improperly based its waiver decision on the type of crime and not the nature and circumstances of the offense.” Silva also found the controlling statute was ambiguous, and that evidence was lacking that the boy's act was premeditated or involved extreme violence, according to the documents.

The Appellate Division on June 17 reversed, holding in part that Silva improperly relied on extrinsic evidence, and disagreeing that there was any ambiguity in the statute. The panel said: “The point of a waiver hearing is not to provide an opportunity for a judge to school the State as to how to view the evidence, but merely to decide whether or not the State's conclusions about the charges were an abuse of discretion. It was not the judge's role to essentially try the matter or substitute her judgment for that of the prosecutor.” The panel added: “The judge not only failed to apply the abuse of discretion standard, she mistakenly applied her judgment in doing so, including minimization of the harm wrought on a twelve-year-old child by E.R.M. assuming her claims are true.” The panel also said: “It was the family court's role to determine if the prosecutor's decision was an abuse of discretion, not whether, in her opinion, after assessing legislative history, independently assessing the credibility of E.R.M. and [the victim], and assessing how much or little harm was inflicted on the victim, the offense warranted being addressed in adult court.”

Weinberg said in her July 3 statement, “I am glad to see that Judge James Troiano and Judge Marcia Silva were rebuked by the appeals courts, but this is not nearly enough.

“There is no place for this parochial, dismissive and sexist behavior in our justice system,” she said, adding “Judge Troiano and Judge Silva should never again be given the privilege of presiding over a New Jersey court” and “we should also use these examples of alarming behavior in a way that curtails this conduct in the future.”

Neither Troiano nor Silva could be reached for comment.

The New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts has declined to comment.

Patrick O'Hara of Del Vacchio O'Hara in Flemington, counsel for E.R.M., said by phone that it's important to remember that Silva was ruling on which court should adjudicate the matter, not the accusations themselves, and said family court judges consider numerous factors in connection with juvenile waiver petitions, including family background. “These type of decisions are going on every day,” he said, noting that his client's case and the G.M.C. case were argued back to back before the same appellate panel.

“This is a disagreement between a judge looking at a case and a prosecutor's office looking at a case,” O'Hara said. “It has nothing to do with leniency. It has to do with where the case will be adjudicated.”

O'Hara added that he believes E.R.M.'s case should have remained in juvenile court, where he said more treatment options are available.

The Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office issued a statement on the E.R.M. case.

“It is the rare instance that a juvenile should be waived to adult court. It is only after very careful consideration that a prosecutor will make such an application,” said Middlesex County Prosecutor Andrew Carey. “We are grateful to the Appellate Division for appropriately recognizing the rights of victims of sexual assault.”

Mitchell Ansell of Ansell Grimm & Aaron in Ocean, counsel to G.M.C., issued a statement: “Superior Court Judge James Troiano has become the subject of immense scrutiny with reference to a decision he rendered last year in connection with my client, G.M.C.'s matter in Monmouth County Superior Court.

“The only issue that Judge Troiano was asked to rule upon on July 30, 2018 was whether the State satisfied its burden pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1 to waive my client to Adult Court. This decision had absolutely nothing to do with my client's guilt or innocence. … As part of that decision-making process, Judge Troiano listened to testimony from three (3) different Police Officers and considered eleven (11) enumerated factors set forth in the Waiver Statute. Several of these factors addressed the issue of whether there is potential for the rehabilitation of the juvenile, the age and maturity of the juvenile and the nature and extent of any prior history of delinquency of the juvenile. The comments made by Judge Troiano in his decision were in the context of addressing those factors and assessing the evidence that he heard.

“The issue of my client's guilt or innocence has yet to be addressed in a Court of law. That day will come. However, at this time, my client is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

“We would respectfully request that any judgment, in this case, be withheld until all of the evidence is presented in a Court of law,” Ansell said.

The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office issued a statement from Prosecutor Christopher J. Gramiccioni: “While we have the utmost respect for the Family Court and the judge in this case, we are grateful that the Appellate Division agreed with our assessment that this case met the legal standards for waiver to Superior Court. As with all cases, we are assessing our next steps, which will include discussions with the victim and her family.”

Troiano, 69, was appointed to the bench in 1992, retired in 2012, and began serving on recall in 2013.

Following the July 2 report, the Times and others have reported that Troiano has since received threats.

Silva, 44, was appointed to the bench in 2014. Previously, according to Law Journal reports, she was an East Brunswick solo and municipal public defender. Before that, she spent seven years as an assistant in the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, trying 28 matters, including murder cases, and arguing before the state Supreme Court at least once. She also practiced from 2000 to 2003 at Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf in New Brunswick as a litigation associate.