A state commission to scrutinize the judges’ performance found one judge who said he was not fit to sit on the bench while he rated the rest of the judges as “meeting” the criteria. The fate of Stephen M. Hopkins and 73 other judges will be held on November 8th.
A state commission that scrutinizes the judges’ performance has found one judge they say is unfit to sit on the bench.
In a Judicial Performance Review Board vote, 15 members voted that Maricopa County Superior Court Stephen M. Hopkins “did not meet” the judicial standard, and 7 voted “it did.” Another he seven commissioners did not vote.
Hopkins’ evaluation and the 73 judges’ evaluations held on November 8 will be passed on to voters in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Coconino counties.
The committee gave the remaining judges, including three Supreme Court justices and five Court of Appeals justices, a near unanimous rating of ‘meeting’ the criteria.
In a Judiciary Performance Review Board vote, 15 members voted that Maricopa County Superior Court Stephen M. Hopkins (pictured here) “did not meet” judicial standards, while seven others voted him out. said to meet. Hopkins’ ratings, as well as those of his 73 judges, which will be held Nov. 8, will be passed on to voters in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Coconino counties.
Committees rarely say judges are unfit to sit on the bench, and voters even more rarely remove judges.
Commission chairman Mike Herron said, “If a judge proves to be unpolite and intimidating, many commissioners will not view such behavior kindly.
Hopkins’ rating may relate to a 2020 reprimand from the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which was found to have violated three articles of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In February 2020, Maricopa County public defender James Haas and Barbara Marshall, prosecutor and chairman of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Ethics Committee, filed a lengthy complaint against Hopkins. The complaint accused Hopkins of impatient and disrespectful behavior towards the defendants, prosecutors and attorneys.
Hopkins accused Haas and Marshall of conveniently choosing a video clip that did not represent his overall attitude, but he was ordered to complete behavioral training.
According to the complaint, between June 2019 and January 2020, six incidents of inappropriate behavior and denial of the right to be heard were recorded.
In one criminal case, Hopkins yelled at a prosecutor during questioning. When prosecutors told Hopkins they didn’t know how long the cross-examination would take, Hopkins accused him of lying.
In another criminal case, defense counsel arrived late. When she apologized for being late, Hopkins said that if she was late again, he would bring her jurors and sit her down and wait for her to arrive.
In other documented cases, Hopkins acted in court in an angry and hostile tone. The Code requires judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judicial system.
It also states that judges should be patient, dignified, and courteous to all those with whom they officially deal. The complaint accused Hopkins of violating these provisions.
All judges, including Hopkins, have filed holding papers this year, according to Herron. It’s worth noting.
Herron said failing to file detention papers is generally unacceptable to commissioners and is seen as a sign of arrogance.
In 2014, Benjamin Norris lost his job when a commission assessed him as not meeting standards and voters later fired him. Although ruled that she did not meet the criteria, voters allowed her to stay and she holds her bench position to this day.
Woods has maintained a high reputation ever since.
“What it teaches me is what she learned from the process,” Herron said. “She learned what a committee does…and she changed, and she frankly became a better judge as a result.”
