A special three-judge panel has recommended that New Jersey Superior Court Judge John F. Russo Jr.—accused of violating multiple counts of judicial conduct, including in his questioning of an alleged rape victim in court—should be removed from the bench.

In a 69-page report and recommendations filed Tuesday, the panel composed of Judges Carmen Messano, Julio Mendez and Bonnie Mizdol concluded that after taking testimony and reviewing the evidence, Russo is not fit to remain as a judge.

"The evidence supports a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that respondent violated the Canons and Rules cited in all four counts of the presentment," wrote the panel.

"Because respondent committed multiple acts of severe misconduct and offered less than truthful testimony before both the ACJC and the panel in an effort to deny or minimize his actions, thereby demonstrating his unfitness for judicial office, the record coupled with the relevant case law supports imposition of the most severe sanction: removal from judicial office."

While the panel acknowledged this was Russo's first time being disciplined since becoming a lawyer in 1997, he failed to present any mitigating evidence regarding his personal and professional behavior to save his job.

"While respondent's multiple instances of misconduct do not evidence dishonesty in and of themselves, the record supports the conclusion that respondent's testimony regarding Counts I and II of the presentment lacked candor, fabricated after-the-fact explanations for events, and displayed a lack of integrity that is unworthy of judicial office."

Also on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ordered Russo and the Attorney General's Office to brief the case and appear for arguments in March.

On July 17, 2019, the Supreme Court filed a formal complaint for Russo's removal from office, based on findings made by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. A week later, the court issued an order creating the three-judge panel to review the matter.

The ACJC, for its part, found by clear and convincing evidence that Russo had violated ethics rules in "four distinct matters."

Of the four, the case known as M.R. v. D.H. received the most notoriety and media attention. It occurred in March 2016 and involved a woman who was seeking a restraining order against a man who she claimed abandoned her along a roadway, threatened to burn her house down, and forced her to have sex. The ethics complaint alleged that Russo, from the bench, put himself in the position of defense counsel by asking her if she tried to "run away," "block[ed her] body parts," "close[d] your legs," or called for the police.

In his answer to the Supreme Court's formal complaint for his removal from the bench, dated Sept. 17, Russo, through his attorney David F. Corrigan of the Corrigan Law Firm in Keyport, said Russo had demonstrated "sincere commitment to overcoming the fault, remorse and attempts [at] apology, and showing that the inappropriate behavior is subject to modification."

In September, Russo also sought, unsuccessfully, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner's recusal from his ethics matter based on statements Rabner made over the summer about judicial conduct and the need for additional judge training.

When he went before the panel convened by the Supreme Court, Russo testified that his questioning of the woman and whether she had tried "to close her legs" was inappropriate and didn't reflect his true character. "Those are words … that can't be spoken by a judge at all because they're charged, they're loaded with much more than I intended, and I think I was somewhat naive when I did utter them, but they're not appropriate because they fall into a class of words that certainly did not reflect—I mean at a minimum did not reflect positively on me. And I think especially when I looked at them out of context and what other people took away, made me sound like some sort of misogynistic buffoon," Russo said, according to the panel's report.

"In doing that, I certainly embarrassed the judiciary and myself and my family, and that is not who I am and that's not what I think being a judge is and not certainly what I want to do as a judge," Russo added. "It goes without saying that I would never say anything like that again."

But the panel said Russo's recorded banter after the exchange with the woman contradicted the assertion that he had remorse. "Any remorse shown in connection with Count I was accompanied by a decidedly incredible explanation for why he posed such unfeeling and objectionable questions to the plaintiff in the first place, and a false justification for jokingly discussing the case with his law clerk and staff afterwards," the panel wrote.

"The panel finds beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent's conduct during and after the proceedings in M.R. v. D.H. violated these Canons."

Deputy Attorneys General David W. Burns and Michael Duffy argued for the state. A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office said the office does not comment on such matters.

Amelia Carolla of Reisman Carolla Gran & Zuba in Haddonfield is also representing Russo, along with Corrigan. Both Carolla and Corrigan could not be reached for comment.

The panel said its function is to make findings of fact and make recommendations as to appropriate discipline.

"Based upon the evidence produced at the hearing, the panel concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent violated those sections of the Code cited in paragraph three of the complaint for removal."

The panel said it was unconvinced by Russo's reasoning that other judges had never been removed from office when the ACJC recommended a lesser sanction.

In his answer from September, Russo had contended that the Supreme Court wrongly sought  his removal despite the fact that the ACJC recommended a three-month suspension—a punishment that Russo said he accepted, while taking responsibility for his actions. "There has been no instance in our state where a Supreme Court in New Jersey has taken the extreme action taken of requesting removal when it was not recommended by the committee," Corrigan wrote at the time. "Further, respondent's immediate suspension without pay is significantly harsh and punishing in that in compliance with the New Jersey Constitution, respondent is unable to work for in any capacity indefinitely during the pendency of this matter."

The panel disagreed.

"Respondent's attempt to distinguish Yaccarino, and other removal cases, because the judges in those cases 'showed no remorse' following 'a pattern of repetitive and intentional misconduct' is unconvincing," the panel said. "Respondent has neither acknowledged nor shown remorse for his Count II misconduct."

"Indeed, he has continuously shaded his testimony in response to evidence revealed throughout the proceedings," the panel wrote.

In another case, Russo drastically reduced the child support lien amount for a litigant he knew from $10,000 to $300, "based solely on uncorroborated financial information supplied by the defendant," according to the panel, which questioned his impartiality in the matter.

The case C.P. v. T.B. also showcased Russo's impartiality, according to the panel. It occurred in July 2016 when Russo engaged in ex parte communication with the female, referred to as C.P. in court documents to protect her identity, who was fleeing a man who was to undergo a paternity test. She told Russo she didn't want to disclose her address because she was afraid the man would find and harm her.

"More than simply violating a prohibition on ex parte communications, respondent's discourteous comments and lack of patience reflect adversely on his temperament to serve as a judge," the panel wrote.

A year later in March 2017, Russo allegedly sought to have judiciary staff reschedule a child support hearing. In that case, the panel found Russo violated Canon 2, Rule 2.3, "Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office."

"His actions undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and his demeanor fell far short of what the Code requires," the panel said. "Respondent's unbecoming conduct reflected adversely on his temperament and fitness to serve as a judge."