CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Impeachment managers from the House of Delegates say they aren’t looking for Circuit Judge Ronald Wilson to spill secrets but they do want him to explain why he took the unusual step of announcing a conclusion that Supreme Court justices violated no ethics policies.
The Judicial Investigation Commission this week filed a motion on behalf of Judge Wilson, seeking to quash a subpoena to have him appear at the impeachment hearing of Justice Beth Walker. The subpoena called him at 1 p.m. Monday.
Wilson, who serves on benches in the Northern Panhandle, serves as chairman of the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission.
The Judicial Investigation Commission reached a conclusion this past July that it had closed ethics complaint cases against justices Margaret Workman, Beth Walker and then-Justice Robin Davis, taking no action against them.
The commission was investigating complaints alleging the three justices used state funds to pay for lunches for themselves, their administrative assistants and court security officers while they were discussing cases and administrative matters in conference.
The commission, in a press release, said its policy is to not acknowledge the existence of complaints until probable cause has been found to issue a statement of charges or an admonishment.
“We are taking the unusual step of making our findings public in these cases,” Wilson stated in that release “because Supreme Court justices are the highest judicial officers in West Virginia. It is important for the public to know that allegations against them have been thoroughly investigated, and they have been cleared of wrongdoing.”
Impeachment managers from the House of Delegates say they agree it’s not proper to hear the ins and outs of the commission’s process.
Instead, they want to know the rationale for making its decision public.
“We will not address the issue of whether or not this was proper or improper but would like to know how Judge Wilson and the Judicial Investigation Commission arrived at the decision to make public the results of their deliberation,” wrote House Judiciary Chairman John Shott, R-Mercer.
Shott, who leads the House impeachment managers, goes on to suggest what Wilson did violates the confidentiality requirements of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure:
The details of complaints filed or investigations conducted by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall be confidential, except that when a complaint has been filed or an investigation has been initiated, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may release information confirming or denying the existence of a complaint or investigation, explaining the procedural aspects of the complaint or investigation, or defending the right of the judge to a fair hearing. Prior to the release of information confirming or denying the existence of a complaint or investigation, reasonable notice shall be provided to the judge.
“The Board of Managers wishes to have the opportunity to discover what induced Judge
Wilson, known as a punctilious and careful public servant, to so disregard the plain strictures of this Rule,” Shott wrote.
Shott continued, “Given the weight such authority is ascribed by the Constitution, and, as this standard does not appear especially stringent, and is accorded such authority, we are all the more puzzled by what induced Judge Wilson to violate it.
“The resolution to this mystery is what is sought by the Board of Managers, and that, simply put, requires us to question Judge Wilson about his issuance of this press release.”
The House managers also want an opportunity to question Wilson about some evidence that may have been withheld form the Judicial Investigation Commission during the impeachment process.
“Therefore, we should have the right to question him about what evidence was withheld and why that evidence was withheld. These are crucial points in determining the completeness of the record we may present to the Senate,” Shott wrote.
(Corrected) Motion to Quash House Managers Response 9 28 2018 (Text)
Judge Wilson is wearing yet another hat in the impeachment process.
In addition to being a potential witness in Justice Walker’s impeachment trial, Wilson was named to serve temporarily on the Supreme Court as it considers Chief Justice Workman’s petition to halt impeachment proceedings.
Lawyers for the state Senate are asking for Judge Ronald Wilson to step aside from that role.
“Your Honor is listed as a potential material witness in impeachment proceedings related to Petitioner’s claims and has been served with a subpoena to appear and testify in those proceedings,” wrote the lawyers for the Senate in a motion filed this week.
“Furthermore, Your Honor could also be a witness in the impeachment proceedings against Petitioner. Accordingly, we respectfully request that Your Honor recuse himself from this matter pursuant to the requirements of Appellate Rule 33 and Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.”