Judge accused of violating code of conduct

EPHRATA — The state Commission on Judicial Conduct recently charged Grant County Superior Court Judge Ken Jorgensen with violating several canons of the code of judicial conduct.

In a statement of charges issued May 3 by the commission, an 11-member panel of judges, lawyers and citizen representatives, executive director J. Reiko Callner lays out the allegations against Jorgensen.

Callner charges Jorgensen with questioning a "Ms. O" in his courtroom "about matters relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding," before her attorney was present, "although (Jorgensen) knew the party to be represented by counsel."

Callner said Jorgensen interfered with her right to legal counsel and "denied her the right to be fully heard according to law," during a June 2005 court proceeding.

"It is further charged that during the hearing (Jorgensen) threatened incarceration and engaged in conduct that was overbearing and abusive," Callner wrote.

The recent charges were the result of a commission investigation, following a July 2005 complaint against Jorgensen. The commission is able to impose penalties ranging from admonishment to a recommendation of removal from the bench.

After investigation and discussions with Jorgensen, the commission determined probable cause existed and decided to bring charges against the judge last month.

The complaint and subsequent charges stem from the 2005 hearing that required Ms. O to bring her 5-year-old niece to court at the request of the girl's father, who sought custody after the girl's mother died. The girl had apparently been living with her deceased mother's family.

Prior to the hearing's scheduled 9 a.m. start time, court officials informed Ms. O that Jorgensen was ready to begin, according to the statement of charges. Jorgensen then called her before the court and began the hearing, ignoring her request to wait for her attorney to arrive at 9 a.m.

Jorgensen began questioning Ms. O about the child's whereabouts and was told she was probably in Coulee City with her grandmother. Ms. O said she did not bring the child.

"(Jorgensen) questioned Ms. O as to why she did not have the child with her, whether she was served with the writ (of habeas corpus), and whether she was deliberately disobeying a court order," Callner wrote. "(Jorgensen) suggested that Ms. O was concealing the child, and then threatened to incarcerate whoever had the child, even though the writ had been directed to Ms. O, who stated she did not have custody or care of the child."

Jorgensen then said it was "obvious to him that Ms. O was 'in cahoots' with the child's grandmother," Callner wrote.

Ms. O told Jorgensen she did not want to say anything more until her attorney arrived. Jorgensen did not stop the hearing, though, but asked further questions of the girl's father.

Ms. O's attorney arrived about 8:56 p.m. as both she and the father were answering Jorgensen's questions relevant to the proceeding.

According to Jorgensen's written response to the charges, the law regarding child custody is based on common sense: "Parents have custody of their children to the exclusion of all others. When one parent dies, the surviving parent has all the rights of custody of the child."

Jorgensen said relatives of a deceased parent will sometimes seek to keep the child.

"The legislature has passed a law making it a crime for a relative of a deceased parent to withhold a child from the surviving parent," Jorgensen wrote. "In some instances, doing so can be a felony."

In this case, the father believed his former wife's relatives were withholding his daughter, Jorgensen said. When the mother died, he said, Ms. O and the grandmother told relatives not to tell the father, knowing he would seek custody of his child.

Once the father learned of the mother's death, he went to the courthouse seeking custody, Jorgensen said. While at the courthouse the father encountered Ms. O and the child's grandmother, who were there to file a petition for third party custody. The father said he asked about gaining custody of his daughter, but Ms. O said he did not ask for the child.

"He says that Ms. O replied that they did not know where the child was, and in any event, he would not get the child," Jorgensen wrote.

He said it was in this context the two parties appeared before him in court the following day.

The hearing was called early, Jorgensen explained, because he was told both parties were ready.

Jorgensen agreed that Ms. O said she was waiting for her attorney.

"When asked about the child, Ms. O responded that she did not bring the child to court as instructed by court order because the child was staying with the grandmother," Jorgensen wrote. "Essentially, it was her position that there could be no hearing because the wrong person had been directed to produce the child."

He said Ms. O was before the court no more than 10 minutes, but the actual "hearing" did not take place.

"However, after the firm position taken by the judge, Ms. O and the grandmother became more conciliatory to the father and released the child to him," Jorgensen wrote.

In December 1996, the commission determined Jorgensen violated canons of the code of judicial conduct and was censured. At that time, he agreed to complete a program of education and mentoring to become a better judge.

The censure was related to a series of conversations Jorgensen had with attorneys in civil cases without informing the opposing counsel.

Jorgensen just finished overseeing 15-year-old Evan Savoie's first-degree murder trial. The jury convicted Savoie in that case of stabbing a 13-year-old companion to death more than three years ago. Jorgensen will sentence Savoie on June 5.