In Re Trkula, 7 Jd 96 (pa.ct.jud.disc. 7-14-1997)

Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania

In Re Trkula, 7 Jd 96 (pa.ct.jud.disc. 7-14-1997)

CourtCourt of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 14, 1997

DocketDocket No. 7 JD 96.

StatusPublished

This text of In Re Trkula, 7 Jd 96 (pa.ct.jud.disc. 7-14-1997) (In Re Trkula, 7 Jd 96 (pa.ct.jud.disc. 7-14-1997)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Trkula, 7 Jd 96 (pa.ct.jud.disc. 7-14-1997), (cjdpa 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 1997, following the presentation of position by counsel for the Judicial Conduct Board and by counsel for respondent, and after the exercise by appellant of her right to allocution, the Court ACCEPTS as evidence that the misconduct of appellant was an isolated incident and that the respondent was motivated not by lucre but by personal pique and annoyance, CONCLUDES that the misconduct was, nonetheless, of a most serious nature for respondent attempted, as the parties agree, to "tip the scales of justice", and, therefore, the Court REJECTS the recommendation of the Judicial Conduct Board that the Court issue a reprimand upon appellant, and DIRECTS:

THAT appellant be suspended from the performance of the duties of District Justice.

THAT the suspension be for a period of sixty (60) days.

THAT the suspension be served without payment of compensation and allowances, and

THAT the suspension from office commence August 1, 1997.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 1997, following the presentation of position by counsel for the Judicial Conduct Board and by counsel for respondent, and after the exercise by appellant of her right to allocution, the Court ACCEPTS as evidence that the misconduct of appellant was an isolated incident and that the respondent was motivated not by lucre but by personal pique and annoyance, CONCLUDES that the misconduct was, nonetheless, of a most serious nature for respondent attempted, as the parties agree, to "tip the scales of justice", and, therefore, the Court REJECTS the recommendation of the Judicial Conduct Board that the Court issue a reprimand upon appellant, and DIRECTS:

THAT appellant be suspended from the performance of the duties of District Justice.

THAT the suspension be for a period of sixty (60) days.

THAT the suspension be served without payment of compensation and allowances, and

THAT the suspension from office commence August 1, 1997.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In Re Trkula, 7 Jd 96 (pa.ct.jud.disc. 7-14-1997), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-trkula-7-jd-96-pactjuddisc-7-14-1997-cjdpa-1997.