Credit: Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock.com

Former Municipal Court Judge Hector Rodriguez violated several Canons of Judicial Conduct when he made a remark, viewed as sexually suggestive, to a female defendant who appeared before him, warranting a public reprimand, the Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct has concluded.

"Whether Respondent intended his words as a sexually suggestive remark, an attempt at humor, or something else, Respondent knew or should have known that his choice of words was inappropriate because of the negative inferences which reasonably could, and, in this case, were drawn from the manner in which he phrased his response to the defendant's inquiry," the ACJC said.

The disciplinary charges against Rodriguez "have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that by engaging in such conduct, Respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.1, Canon 2, Rule 2.1, and Canon 3, Rule 3.5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct," wrote the committee in a May 12 letter.

"As a result of these findings, and for the reasons stated herein, the Committee respectfully recommends that Respondent be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct," wrote the ACJC.

On Dec. 12, 2018, the committee issued a formal complaint against Rodriguez for unethical courtroom behavior. Rodriquez responded to the formal complaint on Dec. 28, 2018. Following a hearing, the ACJC issued a presentment signed by committee chairwoman Virginia Long, dated May 12 and made public Tuesday.

The presentment referred to a transcript and audio recording of the alleged courtroom incident from Dec. 5, 2017, in Franklin Township Municipal Court, during which Rodriguez and the female defendant, who was in court for a first appearance hearing over multiple offenses related to drug charges, had an exchange over bail after her not-guilty plea.

Rodriguez told the defendant that she would be released on her own recognizance without posting bail. The defendant said: "Is it — do I owe you anything or …" To which Rodriguez replied: "Not that you can do in front of all these people, no."

The court incident had resulted in Rodriguez's removal, by a December 2017 Supreme Court order, from the list of municipal court judges authorized to handle central judicial processing (CJP)/centralized first appearance matters.

Rodriguez, admitted in New Jersey in 1982, began sitting in Franklin Township on Jan. 1, 2014, and was reappointed on Jan. 1, 2017, but not thereafter. On Jan. 1, 2017, Rodriguez was designated a municipal court judge to handle CJP matters for the Somerset Vicinage, a position he held until Dec. 11, 2017, when the Supreme Court issued its order removing him from that list.

Rodriguez's lawyer, Fania Veksler of Veksler Law in New Brunswick, couldn't be reached for comment on the presentment.

The committee in its presentment noted that it based its conclusion after a thorough investigation into the matter, which included interviews of multiple witnesses, review of the audio of the proceeding and transcript of the subject proceeding.

The committee said Rodriguez's remark "demonstrated discourteous and undignified behavior which detracted from the dignity of the court."

Rodriguez's Dec. 28, 2018, answer to the complaint admitted the accuracy of the language quoted from the transcript and other factual allegations, but offered clarification and denied violating the cited Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Rodriguez did not provide discovery but submitted seven character letters from attorneys, some of which alluded to his sense of humor, according to court documents.

At a former ACJC hearing at the New Jersey Law Center on Jan. 22, 2020, two witnesses testified: Lauren Casale, a Somerset County assistant prosecutor, and Audra McEvoy, a judiciary employee assigned to CJP court working working as a court services supervisor in the Pretrial Services Unit for the Somerset, Hunterdon and Warren Vicinage. Both women were present in court on Dec. 5, 2017, and heard the exchange between Rodriguez and the female defendant, according to the presentment.

Rodriguez appeared, with counsel, and offered testimony in his defense. Rodriguez claimed he replied to the defendant in the manner he did to "reiterat[e] [to the defendant] that she need not make a payment to secure bail," according to the ACJC.

He contended his remarks to the defendant were misunderstood and not meant to be sexual.

According to the presentment, Rodriguez during the hearing "attempted to contextualize the social climate at the time by referencing the 'Me Too' movement, Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer—men in power powerful positions who were forced out by allegations of sexual misconduct."

But in the presentment, the committee found "based on our review of the evidence of record, that these asserted disciplinary charges have been proven by clear and convincing evidence and that Respondent's poor choice of words during the Dec. 5, 2017 CJP first appearance violated the cited canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct for which public discipline is warranted."

Canon 1, Rule 1.1, requires judges to "participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing, and … [to] personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary is preserved."

Canon 2, Rule 2.1, requires judges to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and … [to] avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."

"The understanding of [Canon 2] is that judges have a special responsibility because they are 'the subject of constant public scrutiny'; everything judges do can reflect on their judicial office," wrote the committee. "As recognized by our Supreme Court, adherence to this principle is of the utmost importance."

Canon 3, Rule 3.5, requires judges to treat all those with whom they interact in an official capacity, including litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others, with courtesy, dignity and patience.

"Respondent failed to conduct himself in a manner consistent with the above referenced high ethical standards," said the committee. "We find Respondent's statement—'[n]ot that you can do in front of all these people, no'—in response to the defendant's inquiry … inappropriate."

"We reject as unpersuasive Respondent's asserted defense that his remark to the defendant concerned monetary bail and only meant to clarify to the defendant that she did not owe any payment to the court," added the ACJC.

The committee rejected Rodriguez's explanation that the remark was meant to be incongruous or a veiled attempt at humor.

"Regardless of his intent, Respondent's statement had the clear potential to suggest to the defendant, … that she could avoid the consequence of her criminal charge if she were to do for Respondent, in private, something of a sexual nature," said the committee. "Such remarks have no place in our judicial system and must be assiduously avoided by all members of the Judiciary, particularly its jurists."

Despite Rodriguez's time on the bench from 2014 and 2019, and an otherwise unblemished disciplinary record, the ACJC said Rodriguez's unethical conduct could not go without a public reprimand.

"Discipline imposed upon a judge is meant to reassure the public that judicial misconduct is neither permitted nor condoned," said the committee.