In a long-running case, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to a public reprimand and 60-day suspension for a Seminole County judge because of events that took place in 2022. An investigative panel of the Florida Qualifications Commission in 2022 recommended similar discipline for Seminole County Judge Wayne Culver.
But the Supreme Court rejected a proposed settlement and ordered the Judicial Qualifications Commission to hold a full hearing on the allegations. The commission found that Culver violated several canons of judicial conduct by “engaging in abusive and intemperate behavior during two separate court proceedings” in February 2022, Wednesday’s ruling said.
As an example, Culver yelled at a man who had entered his courtroom. “Sir, I’m doing something here. Could you shut up and sit down,” Culver said. The man, a defendant named Kevin Newton who was waiting to appear before Culver, said he was trying to find a seat. Culver responded with profanity and threatened to hold Newton in contempt of court.
“Judge Culver admitted shocking himself by his use of profanity, and that members of the public would rightly be appalled,” a document filed by the commission at the Supreme Court said. Judges are required “to conduct themselves with integrity; to be patient, dignified, and courteous toward others in official settings; and to be faithful to and maintain professional competence in the law.
It is self-evident that Judge Culver’s profane outburst violated judicial canons,” Wednesday’s ruling said. The ruling also addressed the issue of appropriate discipline. “Viewed in the abstract, Judge Culver’s behavior toward Mr. Newton was so unacceptable, and so potentially corrosive of public confidence in the judiciary, as to render Judge Culver a candidate for removal from the bench. But here the commission heard mitigating evidence that it described as ‘overwhelming,’” said the ruling shared by Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justices Charles Canady, Jorge Labarga, John Couriel, Jamie Grosshans, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso.
The commission’s evidence showed that Culver’s actions occurred during a brief period in which he experienced ‘intense personal pressure and loss’ while caring for his dying father, the ruling said. Numerous people, including the state attorney, a public defender and other judges, testified on Culver’s behalf. In addition, Culver voluntarily received mental-health counseling for the past two years and he has been “remorseful and cooperative throughout the disciplinary process,” according to Wednesday’s decision.
The ruling pointed to the commission’s finding that Culver “is genuinely contrite, has learned from this experience, and continues to be effective as a judge.” The judge’s misconduct was “aberrational, situational and attributable to stressful personal problems,” the commission found. “And the commission was persuaded that Judge Culver’s misconduct is unlikely to recur. We do not see grounds to deviate from the Commission’s recommendations that Judge Culver be suspended for 60 days without pay and publicly reprimanded,” the court’s ruling said.
–News Service of Florida
Joe D says
I guess all people are “human.” Although judges are kind of held to a higher standard than the rest of us. People do lose it sometimes. As a former Masters prepared
Clinical Nurse Specialist and Child and Family therapist, I found myself in court frequently either directly testifying or working with the court staff on negotiating reasonable legal recommendations that would help families and children/teens in crisis get the resources they needed while protecting the community from unacceptable behavior (many times it was successful…sometimes …unfortunately it was not).
I could tell after working with the Juvenile Magistrates (one step under a judge position), who was having a difficult day, and you could see it was NOT a day to test their patience!
In this situation, I think the negotiated consequences (formal reprimand and a 60 day suspension), along with the judge attending counseling regarding his private loss, and “leaving your personal issues at home,” were sufficiently serious enough.
What I don’t understand is that when this agreement was sent to the governing body, they turned it down and wanted a FULL INVESTIGATION!
There had to be something else going on…was this a PATTERN of unacceptable behavior? Was this behavior motivated by more than just personal stress due to family member’s health?
I don’t know the judge…I would HOPE this governing body’s rejection of the negotiated agreement, wasn’t POLITICALLY motivated…as in the Judge is a DEMOCRAT appointed judge, and the governing body is now majority REPUBLICAN membership…just asking ( I’m sure SOMEONE will enlighten me).