Judge’s tour unethical, Supreme Court says

Published 9:00 pm Thursday, October 26, 2006

OLYMPIA – Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by touring Washington’s sex predator center at McNeil Island while residents had appeals pending, a panel of judges sitting for the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.

The nine judges served as justices pro tempore to hear Sanders’ appeal of his April 2005 admonishment by the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Sanders’ conduct during the Jan. 27, 2003, visit “created an appearance of partiality,” Judge Kenneth Grosse wrote for the majority.

“Justice Sanders created a situation that clearly violated both the letter and the spirit of the canons and created serious concern for both counsel and fellow jurists about the appearance of partiality,” the opinion read.

The high court upheld the commission’s sanction of admonishment, saying it “is appropriate and sufficient in this case.”

Admonishment is the least severe sanction. The commission could have voted to suspend Sanders or remove him from the bench.

Sanders said that he was considering filing a motion for reconsideration or seeking a review before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“My professional reputation is the most precious thing I have,” he said.

The tour and Sanders’ contact with defendants who had business before the court was first reported by The Associated Press in May 2003.

Prosecutors later complained to the Judicial Conduct Commission, which concluded that Sanders violated two canons of judicial ethics and undermined public confidence in the courts.

The justice accepted an invitation from Andre Brigham Young and other residents of the Special Commitment Center at McNeil, which houses about 170 sex predators who have been sent there after they have served their criminal sentences. Civil commitments keep them there for an indeterminate amount of time.

The panel said Sanders toured the facility and met with about 20 inmates, including some who had business pending before the high court. He also accepted documents from some of the inmates.

The commission said Sanders told residents he couldn’t talk about their specific cases but brought up issues that were before the court, including that of “volitional control” – whether sex predators can control their criminal impulses.

The commission said Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and other judges counseled Sanders about possible problems, but that he went anyway.

“Where a judge’s decisions are tainted by even a mere suspicion of partiality, the effect on the public’s confidence can be debilitating,” the panel wrote.

But Sanders said that Canon 2A, which says judges should “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” is unconstitutionally vague.

“If our court is going to say it’s a rule that can be independently enforced, they have to make the rule specific enough so that I and other judges will have fair notice of what conduct is prohibited,” he said. “If I had thought any of this would have violated the rule, I wouldn’t have done it.”