May a judge direct a traffic defendant’s proposed donated goods to a particular charity in place of an unpaid fine?

Plain-English summary

After a traffic fine and unsuccessful extensions to pay or do community service, a defendant offered items from a sports-collectibles inventory instead. The judge considered directing them to a specific charity.

The Committee reasoned that selecting a charity for the donated goods would amount to solicitation using judicial authority. It also viewed facilitation of another bargain after repeated failure to satisfy the fine as a threat to public confidence in judicial integrity and independence.

The opinion cites earlier committee opinions about charitable donations connected to criminal case dispositions.

In practice

The opinion rejects the described judicial direction of donated goods to a named charity in satisfaction of a fine.

Common questions

Q: Was the defendant’s offer voluntary enough to permit the judge’s direction?

A: No. The Committee still treated the judge’s direction as solicitation.

Q: Did prior failures to pay matter?

A: Yes. The opinion points to repeated noncompliance and a further proposed bargain.

Q: Which prior opinions did it cite?

A: Maryland JEC Opinion Requests 1999-08 and 1999-10 on donation conditions.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the then-cited Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 1, 2A, and 4C(2), concerning integrity, appearance, and solicitation.

Citations and references

• Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 1, 2A, and 4C(2).
• Maryland JEC Opinion Requests 1999-08 and 1999-10.

See also

• Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index

Source

• Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 2002-18

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee

Opinion Request Number: 2002-18

Date of Issue: October 18, 2002

O Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice

Inappropriate for Judge to Facilitate Defendant’s Offer of Donation to Satisfy Previously Imposed Traffic Fine

Following a judge’s imposition of a traffic fine and after providing the defendant with several extensions to either pay the fine or perform community service, without success, the defendant proposed to satisfy the fine through a donation of items from a “sports collectibles” inventory. This “offer” apparently prompted the judge to consider whether the judge could direct those items to a particular charitable organization, such as the local boys and girls club.
Canon 1 of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should “observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.” Canon 2A reminds judges to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” and to “act ... in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Additionally, Canon 4C(2) prohibits a judge from soliciting funds for any civic or charitable organization or “us[ing]… the prestige of the judge’s office for that purpose… .” In [Opinion Request No. 1999-08], dated June 11, 1999, the Committee found a violation of Canon 4C(2) where a judge grants the prosecutor’s motion to stet a criminal charge on the condition that a charitable donation be made by the defendant. Under such circumstances the Committee found that the judge’s order directing the “donation” to a charity was “tantamount to a solicitation of funds.” In [Opinion Request No. 1999-10], dated March 6, 2000, the Committee addressed the issue of whether a judge was permitted to order a defendant to contribute to an organization which oversees a substance abuse fund, as a condition for extending probation or probation before judgment. In expressing reservations regarding the practice of ordering or coercing a defendant to make a contribution to an organization which oversees a substance abuse fund, the Committee noted that “[t]he judiciary might … be seen as an advocate or fund-raiser for the special interest. This, in turn, may adversely affect the ‘integrity and independence of the judiciary’ and present the ‘appearance of impropriety.’” A donation to a charitable organization such as the local boys and girls club may be laudable under certain circumstances. However, the direction by a judge of a donation to a specific charity is in the nature of a solicitation of funds for that charity. Moreover, to allow a defendant who has repeatedly failed to comply with a fine imposed by the court to propose another “bargain,” and then to facilitate the offer, could serve to undermine the public’s confidence in the integrity and independence of the judiciary and gives the appearance of impropriety.