State Supreme Court to hear evidence against accused Appeals Court judge

ATLANTA — The Supreme Court of Georgia has decided to “hold in abeyance” a motion to suspend Judge Christian Coomer of the Court of Appeals of Georgia after the Judicial Qualifications Commission of Georgia brought charges of 26 violations of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as an amended complaint filed against Coomer by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission.

The ruling did not list the charges of misconduct filed against Coomer, but the high court denied the Appeals Court judge’s request that he be suspended with pay.

“We … deny Judge Coomer’s request that this court enter an order suspending him with pay without any supporting evidence and without making the determination required by JQC Rule 15 (C) that an interim suspension is necessary because the judge poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice,” the Supreme Court wrote in announcing its ruling..

In explaining its decision, the Supreme Court justices said that on Dec. 29, 2020, the investigative panel filed a motion to suspend Coomer pursuant to Rule 15 (C) on the ground that “the investigative panel has received sufficient evidence to demonstrate that [Judge] Coomer poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice and public confidence in the judiciary.”

The motion mentioned “lengthy formal charges” filed by the JQC’s director against Coomer on Dec. 28, 2020, alleging 26 violations of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as an amended complaint filed against Coomer by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission on Nov. 23, 2020. However, the ruling noted, there is no affidavit or other verification by someone with personal knowledge of the facts that the allegations in the formal charges and the amended complaint are true or supported by evidence.

The motion also refers to extensive evidence allegedly supporting the formal charges that the investigative panel obtained during its investigation of Coomer, but, it notes, none of those materials have been submitted to the court in a form allowing the court to consider them as evidence.

Coomer filed a “Consent to Interim Suspension” on Dec. 30, 2020, in which he does not admit that any of the allegations against him are true or could be proved, even conditionally for purposes solely of the motion to suspend and even without admitting whether the allegations, taken as true, would warrant a suspension under the standard set forth in Rule 15 (C). Instead, he “disputes the allegations by the JQC,” “denies that he violated the Code of Judicial Conduct,” and points out that “[t]he JQC has not filed any evidence with the court to support the allegations in the formal charges.”

“The situation before this court is unlike motions for interim suspension under Rule 15 (C) that the investigative panel has filed in some previous cases, which included exhibits such as arrest or search warrants supported by affidavits of law enforcement officers and not disputed by the judge at issue for purposes of the motion for interim suspension,” the justices wrote. “In short, while the formal charges present extensive and serious allegations of misconduct by Judge Coomer, this court at this time is not in receipt of anything that would be deemed evidence in a civil case and that we may properly consider in determining whether Judge Coomer’s continued service until the case against him is resolved poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice.

“The director has represented, however, that such evidence is available, and so we will hold the motion to suspend Judge Coomer in abeyance and allow the investigative panel to present evidence to this Court to support the motion no later than Jan. 8.”

Coomer’s filing contends the Supreme Court may order him to be suspended with pay simply because he would consent to such a suspension, indicating that he has already entered a “voluntary self-suspension agreement” with the Court of Appeals. However, the Georgia Constitution vests in the JQC “the power to discipline, remove, and cause involuntary retirement of judges” for the reasons set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution and the JQC rules do not authorize a judge to stop performing his or her official duties – while continuing to serve in office and to receive pay – in response to a disciplinary investigation or prosecution by the JQC, by asserting that he is doing so with his consent or by agreement with his own court.

The interim suspension of a judge is authorized only pursuant to JQC Rule 15 (C) by motion of the JQC investigative panel, followed by order of the Supreme Court or pursuant to the provisions of JQC Rule 15 (A) or (B) for judges indicted for or convicted of a felony, the high court noted.

The justices concluded their ruling by noting, “We therefore deny Judge Coomer’s request that this court enter an order suspending him with pay without any supporting evidence and without making the determination required by JQC Rule 15 (C) that an interim suspension is necessary because the judge poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice.”

Special Photo