Counsel for the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission has issued a response to Julie Gordon’s request to reconsider their ruling that Gordon be removed from her role as Daviess County Family Court Judge.
Gordon’s request cited her rights under Marsy’s Law, but in a 3-page response the Commission’s counsel said Gordon’s actions started 3 years before the law went into effect and that she additionally was “using her influence as a judge and leveraging her relationships to secure favorable treatment” for her son in his criminal cases.
Gordon’s attorney had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication of this story.
The JCC’s decision to remove Gordon from office was issued April 22 in a 25-page document titled “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order.” The motion for reconsideration was filed April 26 by Gordon’s attorney R. Kent Westberry.
The response in opposition to the motion — written by Jeff Mando, counsel for the JCCC — was issued April 28. The full response can be found here, starting on Page 158.
The response written by Mando states in part that “Judge Gordon’s Motion should be denied because she has failed to present any evidence of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,’ a prerequisite to securing relief under CR 60.02.”
In her “Response to Formal Notice of Proceedings and Charges” filed on Nov. 22, 2021, Gordon directed the Commission to the Kentucky constitutional amendment known as Marsy’s Law.
“Although the amendment is very new and does not appear to have been applied to a judge as victim yet, Judge Gordon respectfully submits that her rights under the Kentucky Constitution as a victim are not diminished by Judicial Canons,” her November response reads.
In his statement on April 28, Mando wrote that “While Marsy’s Law provides crime victims with the right to be timely notified of criminal proceedings, to be present and heard at hearings, to consult with the attorney for the Commonwealth, and to have their safety considered, those rights do not trump Judge Gordon’s sworn duty to comply with the Cannons in the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct, SCR 4.300. More specifically, Marsy’s Law does not authorize a judge, who may be a victim of a crime, to use her influence, contacts and position of authority to direct, control, or impact the outcome of a family member’s criminal charges.”
The JCC further stated that timing likewise undermines Judge Gordon’s argument that Marsy’s Law justifies her actions, as Section 26A (Marsy’s Law) of the Kentucky Constitution was not adopted and ratified until November 3, 2020.
“Judge Gordon’s text messages, telephone calls and meetings with County Attorney Claud Porter, defense attorney Clay Wilkey, and Judge Burlew started in 2017 and continued up through and including the time that Mary’s Law was ratified,” Mando’s response reads. “Accordingly, Judge Gordon could not have reasonably thought that she was exercising her constitutional right as a crime victim when no such right had yet been codified in the Kentucky Constitution.”
The response continued, “Substantively, Judge Gordon’s recorded jail telephone calls with Dalton, her text messages with Claud Porter and Clay Wilkey, and the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated clearly and convincingly that she was not communicating with Claud Porter, Clay Wilkey and Judge Burlew to protect her rights as a crime victim. To the contrary, from any fair reading and assessment of the evidence, she was acting as an advocate for Dalton. She was using her influence as a judge and leveraging her relationships to secure favorable treatment for Dalton in his criminal cases. Mary’s Law cannot be co-opted to endorse Judge Gordon’s actions.”
The Commission’s ruling to remove Gordon from office is set to take effect on May 2, unless an appeal is filed during that time.
According to Jimmy Shaffer, JCC Executive Secretary, Commission orders are appealed directly to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
“The Kentucky Supreme Court has the power to affirm, modify or set aside in whole or in part the order of the Commission, or to remand to the Commission for further proceedings,” Shaffer said previously via email.
Leigh Anne Hiatt, Public Information Officer for the Administrative Office of the Courts, previously said that Gordon remains on paid suspension both during the 10 days until the order goes into effect, and any length of time until the Supreme Court issues a decision should an appeal be filed.
On April 26, Gordon said she and her team were in the early stages of the appeals process. Regardless of the outcome of an appeal, Gordon is eligible to run for election and is slated to appear in the May primary.
Judges Thomas and Joe Castlen are prepared to continue on the Family Court bench through the end of Gordon’s term if the ruling for her removal is upheld. They were appointed to fill the role on Dec. 7, 2021. Joe said that he and his brother are currently allotted to serve the bench until December 31, 2022 — the end of the term.
Editor’s note: The original version of this story indicated the JCC denied Gordon’s request to reconsider the ruling. While the JCC did recently deny a separate motion related to the case, they have not yet ruled on the motion regarding their final order.
