The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
The state Supreme Court reprimanded a Virginia Beach Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court judge Thursday for violating ethical conduct standards in a 2007 case.
The court censured Judge Ramona D. Taylor after finding that she intentionally blocked a 15-year-old boy from appealing her decision to detain him. Her actions constituted "conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice," Justice LeRoy F. Millette Jr. wrote in the 53-page opinion.
Taylor declined to comment, but her attorney, Kevin Martingayle, said they plan to petition for a re hearing within 30 days. If that doesn't go in Taylor's favor, she can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We're obviously disappointed with the majority decision," Martin-gayle said. "We believe that it contains some mistakes of law and fact."
Taylor is a former prosecutor and has served as a judge since 2000. Her current appointment ends in 2012.
The censure could hurt Taylor's chances of being reappointed by the General Assembly or of moving up to a higher court, Martingayle said.
On May 2, 2007, Taylor found a 15-year-old guilty of misdemeanor assault after he injured a younger student during a fight on a school bus, according to court records. He is not named in public documents because he is a minor. He pleaded "not innocent" to the charge, according to the Supreme Court opinion.
Taylor ordered that the teen be detained until a sentencing hearing scheduled for three weeks later because she believed he was a public threat, according to the opinion. His attorney filed an appeal with the juvenile court clerk, requesting that the Circuit Court release the teen to his parents' custody.
But the clerk declined to process the appeal after Taylor said her decision was not subject to appeal.
That ruling "violated the law" and judicial conduct standards, according to the state Supreme Court opinion.
"A judge may not prevent the appeal of his or her own decisions," Millette wrote in the opinion.
The Circuit Court ordered the teen's release after his attorney filed a complaint. He had been in detention for nine days, according to the opinion.
The state Supreme Court reviewed Taylor's actions after the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission filed a complaint against her. This is the third time the commission has investigated Taylor. The other two complaints were resolved in her favor, according to the Supreme Court opinion.
Two justices dissented Thursday.
Justice Lawrence L. Koontz Jr. wrote in the dissenting opinion that Taylor made a legal error but did not purposely try to shield her ruling from review by a higher court. "While legally in error, Judge Taylor was merely following the law as she and her colleagues understood it to be," he wrote.
He later added, "There is insufficient evidence to establish that the legal error committed by Judge Taylor was accompanied by bias, abuse of authority, or intentional disregard of the law."
Kathy Adams, (757) 222-5155, kathy.adams@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
A Great Judge
Judge Taylor has the reputation for being one of the most meticulous and fair judges in Virginia Beach. It is unfortunate that the individuals who have posted negative comments about Judge Taylor have either never appeared before her or who have only given you one side of the story. It is also unfortunate that the attorneys who have posted comments here have spent their time venting online rather than to speak with the judge directly about their concerns. There is a lot more to this case than any of you are aware. The law governing appeals from detention orders after the trial but before the sentencing is far from clear. The clerks would not send an appeal to the Circuit Court if it was not from a final order. The person posting the comment about what Judge Taylor told the clerks is incorrect. The Supreme Court's opinion was clear that the judge did not tell the clerks not to process the appeal. There are undercurrents in this case that you would be unaware of unless you took the time to check the filings in the Supreme Court. For those who complained about the judge taking too long with your case, you would have a similar complaint if she rushed something that was so imp
The person posting the
The person posting the comment about what Judge Taylor told the clerk is actually correct and this was upheld in the JIRC hearing, the Va. Supreme court proceedings, and now the US Supreme Court decision (June of 2010). Her exact words may not have been "do not process the appeal" but all higher courts other than the juvenile court agreed without dispute that the exact words she did use prevented the clerk from processing the appeal. In fact, the clerk testified this exactly when the case appeared in the higher court in Virginia Beach prior to the Writ of Mandamus being filed. Judge Taylor basically stated to the clerk when re-questioned by the lawyer that her original written orders were that it was "non appealable and interlocutory."She told the clerk that her orders were the same and from that statement, the clerk told the child's lawyer that her orders were non appealable and refused to process the appeal. The higher court proceedings basically found this unprofessional tactic as "splitting hairs."
Judicial Misconduct, no matter how customary or widespread
Dear Friends of our Constitutions,
Virginia has some amazingly beautiful laws.
19.2-265.2 & § 8.01-386 “Judicial notice of laws “A. Whenever ”. . .” it becomes necessary to ascertain what the law ”. . .” of this Commonwealth, ”. . .”, of the United States”. . .” the court shall take judicial notice thereof whether specially pleaded or not”
“§ vscr-6:3-3 CANON 3.C.2) A judge shall require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge” . . .”
“§ vscr-6:3-3 A Judge Shall Perform The Duties Of Judicial Office “ . . .” Diligently. A. “ . . .”(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. “ . . .”
“§ vscr-6:3-2 “ . . .” A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. “ . . .
Ҥ 18.2-481. Treason defined; how proved and punished. Treason shall consist only in: " . . ."(5) Resisting the execution of the laws under color of its authority. Such trea
She kept her clerk from
She kept her clerk from processing the necessary paperwork for this child's bond and when the clerk, not Taylor, had to go through the process of the Writ of Mandamus, she testified that "she felt compelled not process the paperwork" because of a direct statement from Taylor concerning her ruling. She had at least three documented opportunities to correct her ruling and she CHOSE not to keep this from going to a higher court. I know for a fact that the procedures for processing cases in the juvenile courts have changed as a direct result of this case and Taylors ruling. JIRC and SCOVA obviously found her actions to be unlawful as she was censured because she failed to uphold three of the cannons she is supposed to uphold and she intentionally thwarted this child's right to bond and a hearing. Judges should be under scrutiny! She really screwed up in this case and she should be held accountable for her actions. Taylor has been brought up to the JIRC two times prior to this case and she is just now being censured. Where is the justice in that! Even being a friend you have to realize that she in fact broke the law (proven in SCOVA) and should be held accountable just as the j
Judge Taylor cont'd from last comment
In her career, Judge Taylor has confronted the most despicable wastes of human flesh in our community and she has listened to the most disgusting and vile testimony imaginable. Anyone who thinks she is sits on that bench every day for glory and power has a childishly unrealistic image of what judges really do and the incredible scrutiny under which they are required to do it.
"Judge Taylor cont'd from
"Judge Taylor cont'd from last comment
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 11/06/2009 at 8:38 pm. In her career, Judge Taylor has confronted the most despicable wastes of human flesh in our community and she has listened to the most disgusting and vile testimony imaginable. Anyone who thinks she is sits on that bench every day for glory and power has a childishly unrealistic image of what judges really do and the incredible scrutiny under which they are required to do it."
If you've sat in her court like I have you'd see that not everyone is the "waste of human flesh" you mention. Sometimes that waste is reserved for the bench, as in Ms. Taylors courtroom. She treated me like a criminal when I am raising my daughter and the deadbeat mom, grandmother,
Judge Taylor
Knowstherealdeal-were you in the courtroom in this particular case? You are obviously a collogue and/or friend and for the same reasons you ask the public not to listen to the lawyers and disgruntled family members are the very same reasons the public should not listen to you. This case was based on a VERY racially motivated decision on Taylor’s part which has been documented in the information that has taken 2 1/2 years to compile and process. I was a witness to her behavior so unlike you, I do know the facts in this case first hand. She let her personal opinion interfere with the laws she took oath to uphold when she became a judge. When the "n" word was yelled out in the courtroom by the parent of the other child involved, Taylor’s demeanor changed immediately and it was directly after this that she found this 14 year old at the time as a "threat to society" even though the actual case was heard almost four months after the bus stop fight occurred. She was the "chief" judge at the time and she knew appeals would stop at her unless they were taken to the higher court. She kept her clerk from processing the necessary paperwork for this child's bond and when the clerk, not Ta
Judge Taylor
Readers: Please consider the source when reading posts from disgruntled attorneys and parties against whom Judge Taylor has ruled. In every case, at least fifty percent of the litigants and their counsel are going to be dissatisfied. Unfortunately, many are pleased with this decision for reasons outside of the merits. I know Judge Taylor. I have been in her courtroom for hours and days on end. Attorneys and parties complain that she takes too long; but when it is their turn, they want to be heard. Judge Taylor hears from all parties. She asks questions. She writes painstaking notes on every single case. She takes the time to gather the facts. Judge Taylor, shouldered with the awesome responsibility of interpreting the code and applying it in thousands of cases, made a judgment. I can tell you, from personal experience, that Judge Taylor takes her job very seriously. Like any other good judge, she doesn't win favor with attorneys because she doesn't yuck it up with them or take favorites. She is indifferent to their brown nosing and straightforward in her approach to each case. Judge Taylor is a good person who has made dozens of tough judgment calls every day for almost a decade. S
Is that a good thing or a bad thing
Most Judges don't have to ask as many questions, write as many notes, or take as much time to gather the facts. Overall, the judiciary in VB is highly qualified, intelligent, fair, and efficient.
Three strikes?
So, this is the third official conduct investigation/issue with this judge??? That is a pattern whether "rulings went in her favor" or not.
Clearly, there is something this judge doesn't understand about her position and responsibility. Get her off the bench or, at a minimum, don't reappoint her for another term!