No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Flagler Circuit Judge Scott DuPont Faces Charges of “Recklessly” Spreading Baseless Claims About Opponent

| December 1, 2016

Circuit Judge Scott DuPont. (© FlaglerLive)

Circuit Judge Scott DuPont splits his time on the civil bench between Flagler and Putnam counties. (© FlaglerLive)

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, the investigative arm of the Florida judicial system, last week filed a notice of formal charges against Flagler County Circuit Judge Scott DuPont stemming from allegations that he may have acted unethically and “recklessly” during his just-ended re-election campaign against challenger Malcolm Anthony.

In a series of five charges, the commission found that DuPont spread “scandalous information” about Anthony without substantiating it, that he implied Anthony had been jailed and that his wife and daughter had been arrested two dozen times between them, that Anthony had cheated in a straw poll, though DuPont had no documentation substantiating the allegation, and that, aside from his claims about Anthony, that DuPont himself had flatly declared in a forum that he has and would as a judge continue to refuse to find any statute unconstitutional—itself a violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

DuPont hears civil cases in Flagler, and continues to do so in Putnam County as well. He previously sat in Putnam County. It is the first time in memory that a judge in Flagler has faced charges from the Judicial Qualifications Commission, a very serious process that does not lead to such charges absent a strong case against a judge, and that may result in a range of disciplinary consequences that include a public reprimand by the Florida Supreme Court, a suspension, or outright removal from the bench. The process takes several months, which includes giving the judge facing charges the opportunity to rebut them in writing, and may lead to a settlement. The commission recommends disciplinary action. It’s up to the Supreme Court to decide how to proceed.

On Nov. 10, for example, the court approved recommendations to issue a public reprimand to Circuit Judge John Contini in Broward County for violating the code of judicial conduct by making disparaging remarks about prosecutors in that circuit. In July, the commission found probable cause to pursue charges against Circuit Judge Mark Hulsey III in Jacksonville, after Hulsey was accused of using slurs in reference to a female staffer and saying blacks should “go back to Africa.”

In the 7th Judicial Circuit, which includes Flagler, Volusia, St. Johns and Putnam counties, Steven J. deLaroche, who’d served six years as a judge in Volusia County by then, in 2006 faced charges of fixing traffic tickets. He resigned in 2007 rather than face removal from the bench—and tried to run again in 2014. In 1997, the Supreme Court removed Circuit Judge Gayle Graziano from the bench after she was found to have been serially abusing court employees and abusing her power to help friends.

DuPont was first elected in 2010 after defeating Donald Holmes in an at-times bitterly contested election (“It wasn’t coleslaw wrestling, but close,” a FlaglerLive account of their debate began). DuPont’s approach of making unsubstantiated claims, as the qualifications commission saw it in its notice, was apparent then, when DuPont at one point said his opponent was buying the election and his character was suspect.

In the present case, the six-page notice of formal charges describes campaign-trail behavior that may not be surprising for politicians, but that, if substantiated, violates a strict code of ethical conduct judges must abide by.

A judge with a history of aggressive campaigning–and a doctrinaire judicial philosophy.

DuPont, according to the commission’s findings, had conducted a search for “scandalous information” on his opponent on the website, which makes available numerous public records on almost any individual in the nation, after a search and for a fee. The information is not necessarily accurate—in fact, many such searches routinely reflect inaccuracies, mix names, dates, and so on—and the site itself includes lengthy disclaimers, including the line: “The information available on our website may not be 100% accurate, complete, or up to date, so do not use it as a substitute for your own due diligence, especially if you have concerns about a person’s criminal history.” The site also requires its users not to use information culled from it to misuse it.

Put simply, if a defense lawyer or a prosecutor were to present documentation from that site as part of a case in court, a judge would most likely immediately throw it out, if not question the lawyer’s method.

“In spite of those warnings, and instead of taking any steps to verify the scandalous information about your opponent found on the website,” the commission wrote in its findings against DuPont, “you recklessly posted the results of the search under the heading Do You Trust Your Opponent to be your Circuit Judge?’”

The “unsubstantiated and unverified” claims included a suggestion that Anthony used aliases, that he’d posed as an impostor, that he’d received three parking tickets—DuPont could produce only two—that DuPont had suggested he’d had “booking dates,” wording that implies jail bookings, even though that was not accurate, and that he’d once passed a school bus that was unloading children and been ticketed for it, though DuPont could not provide documentation.  DuPont also posted information claiming Anthony’s wife had been arrested three times, and his daughter 21 times. “You did nothing to verify the accuracy of those statements and you posted this information in spite of not even knowing the identities of your opponent’s wife or children.”

The commission’s findings regarding DuPont’s claims about his opponents are disturbing enough, but the Supreme Court may find even more disturbing DuPont’s stated judicial doctrine, which contravenes his oath of office. In a forum, the commission found, “you announced your position that it is not the role of a circuit court judge to determine whether a given statute is unconstitutional, because that would be ‘legislating from the bench.’ You further stated that you have refused to find statutes unconstitutional and that ‘[i]f they don’t like the decision, they can appeal it.’ In doing so, you announced your position that you would not find any statute to be unconstitutional. Previously upon assuming your judicial office, you had sworn under oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Florida Constitution.”

A judge is called upon routinely to interpret statutes in case after case, making such interpretations numerous times in a single session at times, when the lawyers before him have competing interpretations. The interpretations most of the times focus on points of law or rules, and very seldom may entail a constitutional issue. But the principle is the same: judges, not lawyers, decide contested points.

If, for example, a prosecutor had a defendant brought to his trial shackled and dressed in prison garb, the defense attorney would immediately call that unconstitutional (the Supreme Court has ruled that, so as not to prejudice the jury, a defendant may be unshackled and dressed in civilian clothes). The prosecutor could (improbably) claim otherwise. But the judge would have to agree with the defense on a clear point of law and declare the defendant’s presence in prison garb unconstitutional before the proceedings continue. DuPont’s claim seems to preclude that sort of intervention.  

When he first ran for the bench in 2010, DuPont’s contempt for “legislating from the bench” was apparent in several statements during forums at the time, when he went so far as to criticize Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s philosophy of a “living constitution.” The move at the time may have been interpreted as a campaign ploy to appeal to a substantially conservative electorate. The difference this time, picked up by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, is that DuPont said he applied that approach in court as a matter of practice. The Florida Supreme Court may not be as accommodating as the electorate.

DuPont—who defeated Anthony with 62 percent of the vote in August—has until roughly mid-December  to respond to the charges, which appear in full below.

11 Responses for “Flagler Circuit Judge Scott DuPont Faces Charges of “Recklessly” Spreading Baseless Claims About Opponent”

  1. wishful thinking says:

    Sickening, sad and scary that a person like this can alter anyone’s life with their decisions.
    Should be grounds for being de-benched by the Judicial Qualifying Commission. The public deserves honorable judges not vicious liars

  2. Sw says:

    He took lessons from the Donald

  3. Marty Barrett says:

    I have observed this judge in action. He has no regard for the law, the lawyers, or the litigants. Intoxicated by the power of his position. Dangerous

  4. Algernon says:

    Lawyers I respect, speaking in confidence for they have to appear in front of this judge, do not speak of him kindly.

  5. Old Lady says:

    Staley has been doing that during the whole campaign.

  6. Capt. Deployable says:

    Time to “JUDGE” the ” JUDGES ” !!!!

  7. Layla says:

    Seems to me that our new sheriff did the same, did he not? You would like to hope that these men live by a higher ethical standard.

  8. Anonymous says:

    We can never have confidence in fair judgement with someone like this on the bench

  9. Katie Semore says:

    To bad that this same standard does not apply in all elections, especially for the presidential elections. Trump would become a poor man if he was fined for every lie and false claim he made and also the believers of his lies should suffer like consequences as they encouraged and supported the sane lies without any regard for facts. They wouldn’t recognize a fact if it hit them squarely between the eyes. It saddens me that there are so many deplorable people in our beloved country.

  10. Layla says:

    It saddens me there are so many willing to judge others, Katie. This election was not about candidates, but about people fed up with not having a voice in our political process. The name calling from both sides did not help. The good thing about living in America is that there will always be another election.

  11. Roger Niehaus says:

    Take it from me he hasn’t changed in the slightest the case we have before him and his decision of fraud upon the court ruling was just overturned by The 5th DCA God bless them Judges For the justice they returned back to us, Judge DuPont has a major problem with doing the right thing we had filed several motions for him to recuse him self and including just days ago still refuses step aside or follow any law Florida or otherwise so back to the 5th DCA we go again. I wish Polygraph tests were admissible and every one directly involved in this case including Judge DuPont could be administered with full legal power to charge and convict the liars I sure would be the first in line to take one bet no one on opposing side would including the Horrible Judge Scott Dupont. He has alot to hide anyway just rambling because my Attourney says they won’t do this but there should be special acceptance for cases like mine to prove liars from truth. All I can say at this point God must be preparing or using me for something far greater as even in something terrible so Evil God reveals Greatness and goodness. So I just have to be patient it’s in Gods plan and time not ours as He alone Shall be the final Judge in the end

Leave a Reply

FlaglerLive's forum, as noted in our comment policy, is for debate and conversation that adds light and perspective to articles. Please be courteous, don't attack fellow-commenters or make personal attacks against individuals in stories, and try to stick to the subject. All comments are moderated.

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive

FlaglerLive Email Alerts

Enter your email address to get alerts.


news service of florida

Recent Comments

FlaglerLive is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization | P.O. Box 254263, Palm Coast, FL 32135 | Contact the Editor by email | (386) 586-0257 | Sitemap | Log in