May a judge discuss unresolved criminal cases from other states on a national podcast?

Plain-English summary

A judge was invited to a nationally broadcast podcast to discuss cold cases from other states.

The Commission applied Rule 2.10(A), which restricts statements that might affect pending or impending matters in any court. It said the cold cases could later come before a court and concluded that participation as described would be improper.

In practice

The opinion rejects the proposed discussion of unresolved cases despite their connection to other states.

Common questions

Q: Does it matter that the cases arose in other states?

A: The Commission still rejected the appearance because those cases could later come before a court.

Q: What rule controlled?

A: The Commission applied Rule 2.10 on judicial statements about pending or impending cases.

Background and rules framework

Rule 2.10(A) restricts public or nonpublic judicial statements that could affect case outcomes or fairness. The opinion also quotes Rule 2.10(D) on statements during official duties and Comment 1 on judicial independence.

Citations and references

West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct:

• Rule 2.10(A), (D) and Comment 1, judicial statements concerning cases.

See also

• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2020-05
• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2020-25

Source

• Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
• Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2019-21, redacted

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
City Center East - Suite 1200 A
4700 MacCorkle Ave., SE
Charleston, West Virginia 25304
(304) 558-0169 • FAX (304) 558-0831

September 10, 2019

Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2019-21.

Dear

Your recent request for an advisory opm10n was reviewed by the Judicial Investigation Commission. The factual scenmio giving rise to your request is as follows:

You have been asked to appear on a nationally broadcast podcast hosted by a well-known legal commentator and journalist. You would be discussing cold cases from other states. You want to know if this is pennissible or if it would violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.

To address your question, the Commission has reviewed Rule 2.10 which provides in pertinent part:

(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a m atter pending or impending in any court, or make any non public statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or heaiing.

(D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (A), a judge may make public statements in the course of official duties, may explain com1 procedures, and may comment on any proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.

JI C Advisory Opinion 20 19-2 1
Septe mber I 0, 20 19
Page 2 of2

(emphasis added). Comment [I] stales that "[t]his Rule's restrictions on judicial speech are essenti al to the maintenance of the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

Based upon the foregoing, the Commission finds that it would be improper for you to discuss cold cases from other states since those matters could one day come before a court Therel'c>re, the Commission is or the opinion that you should not participate in the event as described as it is likely that such acti vity could result in a vio lation of Ruic 2.1 0.

It is hoped that this opinion fully addresses the issues which you have raised. If there is any further question regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact the Commission.

Si ncerely,

Alan D. Moats, Chairperson
Judicial Investigation Commission

ADM/tat