Supreme Court of Oklahoma

In Re Complaint Against “judge Anonymous”

October 10, 19781978 Okla. LEXIS 503

Summary

The court held that the Council on Judicial Complaints conducts a noncriminal, investigatory proceeding and may subpoena a judge under investigation to appear and testify, while permitting the judge to assert the privilege against self-incrimination question by question. The judge was entitled to have counsel present, but his refusal to answer a relevant preliminary question solely on advice of counsel was not a valid ground to avoid contempt. The court vacated the finding of not guilty and remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Holding

  • Appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court may review the assigned district judge's final order finding the witness not guilty of contempt, notwithstanding the absence of a specific appeal provision for a contempt acquittal.
  • Nature of Council proceedings. Proceedings before the Council on Judicial Complaints are investigatory rather than criminal or adjudicatory, and the full constitutional guarantees afforded a defendant in a criminal prosecution do not apply to the investigation.
  • Compulsory appearance and testimony. The Council may subpoena a judge who is the subject of a complaint to appear and testify, and the judge may not refuse to appear or categorically refuse to answer questions merely because the proceeding is noncriminal or the Council cannot grant immunity.
  • Self-incrimination. A judge testifying before the Council may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination only by affirmatively asserting it in response to each question that may tend to incriminate; a blanket refusal to testify is unavailable.
  • Right to counsel. A judge subpoenaed to testify as a witness before the Council may be accompanied by counsel, even though the proceeding is noncriminal.
  • Contempt and refusal to answer. The question whether the judge had a former law partner was a relevant preliminary question, and refusal to answer it on advice of counsel did not preclude contempt when the advice was legally erroneous. The assigned district judge therefore erred in finding the judge not guilty of contempt.

Docket COC-77-115

Cited authorities

  • Rule 1.10(c)(1)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF