May a Wyoming judge publicly advocate increasing the maximum sentence for repeat DUI?

Plain-English summary

A judge wanted to state publicly that the maximum incarceration period for a fourth or later DUI under W.S. § 31-6-323(c) should rise from two to five years. The committee majority read the Code as a whole and concluded that a public position on this specific sentencing change could cause a litigant to perceive that the judge had already formed a view on an issue before the court.

The majority distinguished general efforts to improve the legal system from advocacy about a particular statutory change. It read Rules 3.2(A) and 4.1(A)(6) as permitting work on general matters concerning law and court administration, but not the public stance proposed here. The majority said the judge could educate legislators, officials, the media, or the public by sharing empirical or anecdotal experience with the current law without advocating an outcome.

Judge Price dissented. The dissent read Rules 3.2(A) and 4.1(A)(6) to permit a judge to advocate the proposed change as an effort to improve the law or administration of justice, and disagreed that the public statement necessarily created an appearance of impropriety.

In practice

The majority's conclusion concerns the judge's proposed public position on a particular sentence change. It expressly allows sharing information about experience with the current law without recommending an increase, decrease, or retention of the maximum term.

Common questions

Q: Did the majority permit the judge to publicly support a five-year maximum?

A: No. It concluded that the judge should not make a public position known on whether the maximum for a fourth or subsequent DUI should change.

Q: May the judge explain how the current law has worked?

A: Yes. The majority says the judge may provide empirical or anecdotal experience with the current law to educate others without advocating a result.

Q: Was the committee unanimous?

A: No. Judge Price dissented and would have allowed the judge to make the proposed public statement as an effort to improve the law.

Background and rules framework

The majority applies Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.1 through 1.3 on compliance and public confidence, Rule 3.1(C) on extrajudicial activity, Rule 3.2(A) on consultation with government, and Rule 4.1(A)(6) on political activity concerning improvements to the law. The dissent reads Rules 3.2(A) and 4.1(A)(6) more broadly.

Citations and references

Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct:

• Canon 1 and Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, independence and public confidence.
• Rule 3.1(C), extrajudicial activity and impartiality.
• Rule 3.2(A), appearances before governmental bodies.
• Rule 4.1(A)(6), political activity concerning law improvement.

Statutes:

• W.S. § 31-6-323(c), identified by the opinion as the repeat-DUI sentencing provision at issue.

See also

• WY Judicial Ethics Op. 2016-04: Local domestic violence council

Source

• Landing page: Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 2011-01