The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

96-629


MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE. HEAR YE. HEAR YE. HEAR YE. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA IS FOR YOU IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA, DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS HONORABLE COURT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. PLEASE BE SEATED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. THE FIRST MATTER ON THE COURT'S DOCKET THIS MORNING, IS THE PUBLIC REPRIMAND OF JUDGE PATRICIA KENZIE. JUDGE KINSEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE THE PODIUM AND REMAIN STANDING. BY THESE PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING, WE ARE REMINDED ONCE AGAIN, OF THE NECESSITY THAT CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE, MUST ADHERE TO THE VERY STRICT REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED UPON THEM BY CANON 7 OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, AND THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF AN INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL JUDICIARY, IN PROTECTING THE RULE OF LAW. THE TRIAL JUDGES OF THIS STATE ARE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL ELECTIONS. THOUGH THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LIFE TENURE GRANTED TO ALL FEDERAL JUDGES BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, OUR COURTS AND OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM HAVE REPEATEDLY ENDORSED THE RIGHT OF STATES TO CHOOSE JUDGES BY ELECTION. THAT, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS NOT A PROBLEM. RATHER, THE PROBLEM WE FACE TODAY IS THAT SITUATION IN WHICH A CANDIDATE FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE OPENLY ENGAGED IN THE POLITICAL RHETORIC OF PARTISANSHIP THAT OFFENSES THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE RULE OF LAW AND THE STRICT IMPARTIALITY REQUIRED OF COURTS AND ALL JUDGES. JUDGE KINSEY, YOU ARE HERE BECAUSE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION AND THIS COURT HAVE, FOUND THAT YOU VIOLATED THAT FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF IMPARTIALITY. THE JQC MADE FINDINGS WHICH THIS COURT APPROVED, THAT DURING YOUR CAMPAIGN FOR OFFICE AS AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE, YOU ACTIVELY AND REPEATEDLY PORTRAYED YOURSELF AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD NOT BE IMPARTIAL BUT RATHER WOULD USE HER JUDICIAL OFFICE TO FAVOR THE STATE AND DISFAVOR DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THAT YOU WOULD PRESIDE OVER AS A JUDICIAL OFFICER. OUR OPINION COMMANDING YOU TO APPEAR BEFORE US TODAY, EXPRESSLY NOTES THAT SOME OF THE CHARGES AGAINST YOU, STANDING ALONE, WOULD NOT INDIVIDUALLY WARRANT DISCIPLINE. BUT TAKEN AS A WHOLE, THEY REVEAL A PATTERN OF PARTISANSHIP SO SERIOUS AS TO REQUIRE NOT MERELY THIS PUBLIC REPRIMAND BUT ALSO THE IMPOSITION OF A SUBSTANTIAL FIND, PLUS PAYMENT OF COSTS OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST YOU THAT WE HAVE ORDERED IN OUR JUDGMENT. THE FIRST CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST YOU DEMONSTRATES YOUR APPEAL TO PARTISANSHIP. THE JQC FOUND THAT YOU DISTRIBUTED A BROCHURE SHOWING A PHOTOGRAPH OF YOURSELF, STANDING WITH A GROUP OF ARMED STATE POLICE OFFICERS. WITHIN THAT BROCHURE, YOU STATED THAT YOU WOULD, QUOTE, HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY PUTTING CRIMINALS BEHIND BARS. JUDGE KINSEY, YOU, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AND LICENSEED ATTORNEY, KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, AT THE TIME THAT YOU USED THIS BROCHURE, THAT NO JUDGE MAY COMMIT HERSELF TO HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROSECUTION, JUST AS NO JUDGE MAY COMMIT HERSELF TO HELP DEFENDANTS, CONSUMERS, BUSINESSES, INSURANCE COMPANIES OR ANY OTHER PARTIES THAT COME BEFORE THE COURTS. WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY AND FUNDAMENTALLY REQUIRED OF YOU, IS YOUR I AM PART PARSIALITY AS -- IS YOUR IMPARTIALITY AS TO ALL PARTIES, NO MATTER HOW WEAK OR HOW POWERFUL OR WHETHER THEY ARE THE ACCUSED OR PROSECUTION. JUDGE KINSEY, IN THE USE OF THIS BROCHURE, YOU DIRECTLY VIOLATED THE CANONS OF THE RULES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, WHICH RESTRICTED YOU IN YOUR CAMPAIGN, TO AVOID PARTISANSHIP, WHILE PLEDGING TO FAITHFULLY PERFORM YOUR DUTIES AS A JUDICIAL OFFICER. THE OTHER CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOUND BY THE JQC REPRESENTS A REPEATED PATTERN OF MISREPRESENTATION TO THE PUBLIC THAT IT IS OKAY TO BE PARTISAN AND BIASED AS A JUDICIAL OFFICER. IN CHARGE TWO, YOU DISTRIBUTED YET ANOTHER BROCHURE, ENTITLED, QUOTE, IF YOU ARE A CRIMINAL, YOU PROBABLY WON'T WANT TO READ THIS, END QUOTE. THIS BROCHURE FURTHER STATED THAT, ABOVE ALL ELSE, YOU IDENTIFY WITH VICTIMS OF CRIME, AND YOU FURTHER SUGGESTED THAT YOU WOULD FAVOR THE TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS. CHARGE THREE AGAINST YOU INVOLVES ANOTHER BROCHURE IN WHICH YOU ANNOUNCED YOUR BELIEF THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY JUDGES. AND CHARGE FOUR, DURING A RADIO INTERVIEW, YOU MADE THE STATEMENT THAT YOU FELT IT WOULD BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A JUDGE, TO BE, QUOTE, ABSOLUTELY A REFLECTION OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. AS IF POPULAR CURRENT OPINION SHOULD CONTROL JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN THE RULE OF LAW, WHETHER POPULAR OR NOT. OF COURSE, THE JUDGE'S DUTY IS TO THE LAW, EVEN WHEN UPHOLDING THE PREVAILING LAW IS UNPOPULAR OR NOT FAVORED BY CURRENT MAJORITIES. THIS IS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE CONCEPT OF AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY, WHICH EVERY JUDGE SWEARS TO UPHOLD. EVERY FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT LEARNS THE AXIOM THAT, IN THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, COURTS ARE OBLIGED TO UPHOLD THE RIGHTS OF THE DISFAVORED AND THE MINORITY, EVEN IF THE MAJORITY WOULD HAVE IT OTHERWISE. THROUGHOUT MORE THAN 200 YEARS OF AMERICAN HISTORY, OUR MOST NOTED AND RESPECTED JUDGES HAVE SUFFERED SCORN AND THREATS IN THEIR EFFORT TO HONOR THIS OBLIGATION AND RENDER DECISIONS REQUIRED UNDER OUR NATIONAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS IN THE RULE OF LAW. JUDGES ARE BOUND NOT TO BE SWAYED BIPARTISAN INTEREST, PUBLIC CLAMOR OR FEAR OF CRITICISM. THEY ARE BOUND TO BE FAIR, EVEN WHEN FAIRNESS IS UNPOPULAR, AND TO HONOR RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN OUR CONSTITUTIONS, EVEN WHEN A PROSECUTION MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED. CHARGE FIVE FOUND THAT, IN VARIOUS WAYS DURING YOUR CAMPAIGN, YOU ACTIVELY SOUGHT TO CLOAK YOURSELF IN, QUOTE, AN UMBRELLA OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. YOU, AGAIN, SUGGESTED YOU WOULD FAVOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND VICTIMS OVER THE ACCUSED AND, QUOTE, BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIMES. CHARGE SEVEN AGAINST YOU INVOLVES ANOTHER PIECE OF CAMPAIGN MATERIAL, ENTITLED, QUOTE, A SHOCKING STORY OF JUDICIAL ABUSE. IN THIS MATERIAL, YOU DESCRIBED EVENTS INVOLVING YOUR OPPONENT'S CONDUCT IN OFFICE, IN AWAY THAT WAS CLEARLY INTENDED TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC AS TO THE TRUE FACTS. THIS MATERIAL ALLEGED THAT YOUR OPPONENT RELEASED A DEFENDANT ON BOND, AFTER HE WAS CHARGED WITH BATTERING HIS MOTHER. SOON AFTERWARD, ACCORDING TO THIS BROCHURE, THE DEFENDANT'S PARENTS RETURNED TO YOUR OPPONENT AND REPORTED THAT THE SON WAS MAKING THREATENING PHONE CALLS. THE BROCHURE STATED, IN LARGE, BOLD LETTERS, THAT INSTEAD OF REVOKING THE DEFENDANT'S BOND AND PUTTING HIM IN JAIL, YOUR OPPONENT OFFERED TO PUT THE ELDERLY PARENTS IN JAIL. IN POINT OF FACT, JUDGE KINSEY, NO SUCH THING HAPPENED. IN POINT OF FACT, YOUR OPPONENT IMMEDIATELY REVOKED THE DEFENDANT'S BOND AND NEVER THREATENED TO PUT THE PARENTS IN JAIL. JUDGE KINSEY, THE VERY BROCHURE THAT MADE THIS CLAIM, ALSO INCLUDED MATERIAL, ALTHOUGH IN FINE PRINT, UNLIKELY TO BE READ BY THE PUBLIC, THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED THE VERY CLAIM THAT YOU MADE IN BOLD TYPE FACE. CHARGE NINE ALSO INVOLVES A MISREPRESENTATION OF YOUR OPPONENT'S RECORD N CAMPAIGN MATERIAL YOU INDICATED THAT YOUR OPPONENT RELEASED YET ANOTHER CRIMINAL ON BANNED WHEN THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER AND IN POINT OF FACT, THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER, AT THE TIME HIS BOND WAS SET, AND YOUR OPPONENT'S ACTIONS WERE MISS CAST. FINEALLY -- FINALLY THE JQC SAID THAT YOU CONVEYED AND FALSE AND MISLEADING IMPRESSION OF THE JUDGE'S PROPER PLEDGE OF IMPARTIALITY, ESPECIALLY IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, FOR THE REASONS I HAVE OUTLINED ABOVE, AND PERHAPS THE ONLY POSITIVE SIDE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, THIS COURT MUST ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THANKFULLY, THAT YOUR CONDUCT ON THE BENCH, HAS NOT REFLECTED THE VIEWS YOU EXPRESSED DURING YOUR CAMPAIGN. THIS COURT CAN ONLY HOPE THAT THIS CONDUCT REFLECTS YOUR GENUINE COMMITMENT AND DEDICATION TO FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY. WE CAN ONLY HOPE THAT A PUBLIC, EARLIER DECEIVED BY YOUR CAMPAIGN RHETORIC AS TO THE APPROPRIATE OF A JUDGE'S PARSIALITY, WILL BECOME AWARE OF YOUR REANNUNCIATION OF PARSIALITY, NOW THAT YOU WERE A JUDGE, AND WILL HAVE THEIR MISCONCEPTIONS CORRECTED. PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR YOU TO APPEAR HERE TODAY, IS THIS COURT'S ATTEMPT TO UNDO AND MITIGATE THE DAMAGE YOU DID TO THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF AN INDEPENDENT AND NON-PARTISAN JUDICIARY IN THIS COUNTRY'S UNIQUE AND LASTING FORM OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. SO THAT THERE WILL BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF IMPARTIALITY TO OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, I WILL CONCLUDE THIS ADMONITION AND REPRIMAND, BY READ AGO PASSAGE FROM A RECENT OPINION OF THIS COURT. UNFORTUNATELY -- BY READING A PASSAGE OF AN OPINION OF THIS COURT, UNFORTUNATELY INVOLVING DECISIONS SUCH AS THIS AND I READ FROM STATE VERSUS HENRY McMILLEN. THIS COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE LACK OF BIAS AND PARSIALITY IS AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE AS A JUDICIAL OFFICER. THE PROMISE OF EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW IS ESSENTIALLY PREDICATED UPON AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY COMMITTED TO FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE, IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. IN ROSE VERSUS STATE, WE REAFFIRMED THIS STATUS AND OFTEN REPEATED PRINCIPLE IN OUR JURISPRUDENCE WHEN WE STATE IT. THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST BE BEYOND QUESTION. IN THE WORDS OF CHIEF JUSTICE TERRELL HE WILL -- TERRELL, THIS COURT IS COMMITTED THAT NOTHING LESS THAT THE CONTROLLED NUTRALITY OF AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE AND ANYTHING ELSE TENDS TO DISCREDIT THE ADVERSARY AND SHADOW THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. THE ATTITUDE OF THE JUDGE AND ATMOSPHERE IN THE COURTROOM SHOULD INDEED BE SET, NO MATTER WHAT CHARGE OF THE LITIGANT OR WHAT CAUSE HE IS CALLED ON TO LITIGATE, HE CAN APPROACH THE BAR WITH EVERY ASSURANCE THAT HE IS IN A FORUM WHERE THE JUDICIAL IRMINE IS EVERYTHING THAT IT TYPIFIES, PURITY AND JUSTICE. THE GUARANTEE OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL CAN MEAN NOTHING LESS THAN THIS. ACCORDINGLY NO OTHER PRINCIPLE IS MORE ESSENTIAL TO THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THAN THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE. IT IS THIS COURT'S HOPE THAT YOU, ABOVE ALL OTHER JUDGES, WILL GO FORTH AND TEACH THIS LESSON TO THE PUBLIC OF FLORIDA. JUDGE KINSEY, YOUR PUBLIC REPRIMAND IS NOW CONCLUDED AND YOU ARE FREE TO GO.

THANK YOU, SIR. JUSTICES.