A New Jersey Superior Court judge who came under heavy scrutiny earlier this month for his handling of a juvenile case involving allegations of rape will no longer sit, according to an order issued Wednesday by the chief justice.

The order provides that “recall to temporary judicial service of retired Superior Court Judge James G. Troiano, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:6A-13 and as authorized by the court's order of November 7, 2018, is concluded effective immediately.”

The document notes that the directive is “pursuant to his [Troiano's] request,” and is signed by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, who issued a separate statement Wednesday announcing the creation of an “enhanced” training program for judges on sexual assault, domestic violence, and other sensitive matters.

Rabner, in his lengthy statement, also commented more broadly on the judicial disciplinary process, which he said is not designed to punish judges.

“About 450 judges of the Superior Court handle more than 800,000 new cases each year with great professionalism and skill. Many of those matters are sensitive, and all of them call for careful attention to the facts and the law,” Rabner said, adding that errors of fact or law are “not a basis for discipline” but are instead handled in appeals.

Troiano couldn't be reached, and the Administrative Office of the Courts declined to comment.

Troiano, whose judicial service has spanned decades, had been the subject of calls to step down following what became national media coverage detailing his ruling last year in 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. The Appellate Division reversed June 14.

Also the subject of calls to step down this month has been Judge Marcia Silva of Middlesex County Superior Court. In a separate case, argued back to back before the Appellate Division panel that ruled on Interest of G.M.C., Silva last year denied waiver to adult criminal court in the case of a 16-year-old boy accused of raping a 12-year-old girl during the time when their families shared a home. The Appellate Division on June 17 reversed her August 2018 ruling.

Among those urging the judges' removal has been Senate President Steve Sweeney. He said in a July 8 statement: “It's baffling to imagine that anyone who has read the judges' statements, or the appellate rebuke of their opinions, and does not believe they should be removed from the bench immediately. I stand with the Middlesex, Monmouth and Bergen County legislators of my caucus who have already urged the judicial branch to take strong, corrective action. These judges have shown an egregious absence of clear judgment, and if they are allowed to maintain their positions it will undermine public faith in the very institution of justice they serve.”

The defense bar has since spoken against removing the judges, pointing out that the judges were ruling not on the cases' merits, but on which court—family or criminal—should adjudicate them.

The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender said in a lengthy statement July 12 that the “recent attacks on Judges Troiano and Silva are misplaced.”

“Vilifying or seeking the removal of judges who make unpopular or even erroneous decisions threatens the independence of the judiciary. Judges are simply lawyers entrusted with the responsibility of deciding difficult cases,” Public Defender Joseph Krakora said, adding later that juvenile offenders are usually handled differently, and “even if the two cases had remained in juvenile court, the accused offenders would have been exposed to lengthy terms of incarceration (up to four years with no assurance of parole) and the lifetime restrictions imposed by Megan's Law.”

The Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey said in a July 10 statement from president John Azzarello that the remarks by Troiano and Silva pointed to in the Appellate Division decisions came in the context of lengthy rulings examining numerous factors.

“The ACDL supports the independence of the judiciary,” Azzarello said. “The ACDL believes the call by certain legislators to oust these judges based upon their decisions poses a real and significant threat to the independence of the judiciary. The ACDL also wishes to be clear that we do not support or countenance any reported statements contained in the judges' decisions that can be viewed as minimizing the seriousness of the alleged criminal conduct.”

Rabner in his statement Wednesday said that judges “are often called on to make difficult decisions.”

“In all matters, they must follow the law even if an outcome may be unpopular. … And there can be no reason for judges to fear discipline—not from the court system or any other entity—when they carry out their solemn responsibilities in that way.

Those vital principles lie at the heart of judicial independence, which is central to our constitutional democracy. Like everyone else, judges may sometimes make mistakes while reasonably carrying out their duties in good faith. That, too, is not a basis for discipline,” Rabner said.

“In our system, arguments about possible legal errors are instead challenged and reviewed on appeal.”

In Troiano's case, prosecutors sought to waive G.M.C. to criminal court to be adjudicated as an adult. Troiano denied that motion 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: “This 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.”