Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carlos Moore Petition
Carlos Moore Petition
J
BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
No. 2021-322
In accordance with Rule 8.E. of the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial
Performance ("Commission"), the Commission considered the matters set forth below and, based
on clear and convincing evidence, the Commission recommends a public reprimand, removal,
suspension for six (6) years, and fine of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) of Carlos E. Moore,
Municipal Court Judge, City of Grenada and City of Clarksdale State of Mississippi, hereafter
referred to as the "Respondent." In support of that recommendation the Commission makes the
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
probable cause to file a Formal Complaint against Respondent in Inquiry Concerning a Judge No.
2021-322.
2. On July 15, 2022, the Commission filed a Formal Complaint charging Respondent
with judicial misconduct, violating Canons 1, 2A, 3B(5), 3B(9), and 4A of the Code of Judicial
Conduct of Mississippi Judges and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890.
4. On November 30, 2022 the Commission sent Respondent, through his counsel, the
Commission's First Set oflnterrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admissions.
Page 1 of 13 Ff LED
JAN 3 0 2024
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
Respondent did not Answer the Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for
5. On May 31 , 2023, an Order Setting Cause for Hearing, with a September 22, 2023
7. On September 19, 2023, Presiding Member Judge Kent McDaniel denied the
Motion to Continue.
8. On September 20, 2023, Presiding Member Judge Kent McDaniel signed an Agreed
9. On September 22, 2023, Respondent filed his Case-in-Chief and Sworn Written
10. On September 29, 2023, the Commission filed its Final Response.
11. On October 20, 2023., the appointed Committee met to review and determine its
received.
13. At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 8, 2023, the Commission voted to
FINDINGS OF FACTS
JURJSDICTION
14. The Commission is a body created pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi
Page 2 of 13
Constitution of 1890, as amended. Respondent is now and was at all times complained of in Inquiry
Concerning a Judge No. 2022-322, a Municipal Court Judge, City of Grenada, State of Mississippi
15. Despite only being on the bench a little over six (6) years, Respondent has already
amassed multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges and Section
16. In December of 2019, Respondent was sent a letter I from the Commission
regarding posted information on his social media platform on open cases heard in his court in
violation of Canon 3B(9). The letter instructed him that the Canons prohibit judges from
commenting publicly on pending or impending cases in any court, that could affect the outcome
or its fairness and that he should refrain from this conduct in the future.
(referred to MOU 1 for clarity) as a result of his continued use of social media. In MOU 1,
acknowledged that he had Facebook and Twitter accounts using the name "Judge Carlos Moore"
where he regularly posted political endorsements and advertisements for his law firm and accepted
a private reprimand. Respondent agreed that the posts violated the Canons and agreed to take all
reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that his posts on social media do not lend the prestige of
his office to advance the private interests of his non-judicial activities. Specifically, Respondent
agreed to remove any posts from his government official Facebook page that did not involve court
~
business and only post useful information regarding the court. Respondent also agreed not to post
personal interests. The MOU 1 did not preclude posts on judicial news, commentary, historical
and current judicial events.2 Respondent was privately reprimanded for the behavior listed in this
action.
Understanding (MOU 2) acknowledging his violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct by using
his judicial position in his mistreatment of law enforcement officers in a case he was handling as
an attorney. Respondent agreed his behavior warranted a public reprimand and fine.
19. Despite clearly being put on notice, acknowledging his violative behavior and
agreeing to stop posting prohibited information on social media, Respondent continued to do so.)
Despite all efforts to instruct and rehabilitate, in November of 2021, Respondent posted on social
media under the account name "Judge Carlos Moore" regarding the Kyle Rittenhouse acquittals.
I ·__ )
Specifically he stated:
If anyone still believes justice is blind in America after the Kyle Rittenhouse
acquittals yesterday, you just refuse to accept an ugly truth. I can almost guarantee
you that if Kyle had been black and killed two white men in the same manner Kyle
did, he most certainly would have been convicted. There has never been a greater
need for black lawyers and judges in America to keep decrying the blatant
inequities that exist in our criminal justice system and to keep pushing for a color
20. Respondent did not just make a racially charged social media post, Respondent
2 These type posts are specifically allowed by Canon 4B of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
3 Some prohibited posts were made under the name "Judge Carlos Moore."
Page 4 of 13
J
made racially charged comments nationally during his appearance on The Kelly Clarkson Show
on June 22, 2022. Ostensibly, Respondent was invited on the show to discuss his "Do Better
ASAP" program. During the interview, Respondent said "There are many judges that don't look
like me and the people that appear before them. They can not be empathetic because they don't
look like the people that go before them but I preside over two jurisdictions where there are
African-Americans, 85/90% of people look like me, and I want to give them a second chance if
they qualify."
21. In April of 2023, on the "Judge Carlos Moore" page, Respondent posted
information about a defendant who appeared before him that very day and outlined the conditions
she must meet for him to dismiss her charge, conditions that were not yet met, on a case that was
then pending.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22. Canon 1 of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct (hereinafter "Code") requires
the Respondent to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. An independent and
establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe
those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved.
23 . Canon 2 of the Code requires the Respondent to avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities. 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. Judges shall not lend the prestige of their offices to advance the private interests
of judges or others.
Page 5 ofl3
24. Canon 38(5) of the Code requires a judge to perform judicial duties without bias
or prejudice, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or
prejudice based upon!!!£.§., gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or
socioeconomic status.
Canon 3B(9) of the Code prohibits a judge from commenting on a pending or impending
case in any court that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or
25. Canon 4 of the Code requires the Respondent to conduct all of the judge's extra-
. judicial activities so that they do not: cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act
impartially as a judge, demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of
judicial duties.
misconduct.
SANCTIONS
consideration is given to the Supreme Court's guidance that the sanctions must be consistent with
28. Further, the Court has promulgated six factors to consider in assessing
Page 6 of 13
)
proportionality:
Mississippi Comm 'n on Judicial Performance v. Harris, 131 So. 3d 1137, 1144 (Miss. 2013)
;,'
(citing Miss. Comm 'non Judicial Performance v. Skinner, 119 So. 3d 294,300,307 (Miss.2013)).
29. Applying those Harris/Skinner factors to the evidence reveals the following:
Respondent was appointed Municipal Judge for the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi in July
of 2017. In May of 2020, Respondent was named Municipal Judge for the City of Grenada.
' ) During his six ( 6) years as a Municipal Judge, Respondent was 1) sent an informal corrective letter
regarding posting about cases pending before him on social media; 2) issued a private
admonishment for political posts on social media under the name "Judge Carlos Moore"; and 3)
issued a public reprimand for utilizing his judicial office to summon and embarrass law
enforcement officer in his courtroom on a case where he was acting as a private attorney. In
Judges and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Respondent's disregard for
In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boland, 975 So. 2d 882 (Miss. 2008),
witnesses heard Judge Boland saying African-Americans could go to hell. Judge Boland
Page 7 of 13
)
appeared to make these type statements specifically about the African-American officials in
attendance at the conference she was attending as well as African-American officials in Hinds
In Miss. Comm 'n on Judicial Performance v. Osborne, 11 So. 3d 107 (Miss. 2009), Judge
Osborne was quoted as saying "White folks don't praise you unless you're a damn fool. Unless
they think they can use you. If you have your own mind and know what you're doing, they don't
want you around." The Court ordered Judge Osborne suspended from office for a period of one
Jenevein v. Willing, 493 F. 3d 551 (5 th Cir. 2007) does not relate to disparaging racial
remarks but does uphold a censure for remarks made while in a courtroom and wearing a robe.
Respondent may not have been wearing a robe or mhis courtroom while making all of these
comments, but he was certainly holding himself out to be a judge.
In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Pe,j'ormance v. Clinkscales, 192 So. 3d 997 (Miss. 2016),
Judge Clinkscales utilized her social media to endorse a political candidate, and gave deceptive
responses in a newspaper interview. Clinkscales was publicly reprimanded and costs were
imposed.
In Miss. Comm 'n on Judicial Performance v. Patton, 57 So. 3d 626, (Miss. 2011 ), Patton
made comments to the local newspaper in an attempt to explain his judicial actions and justify a
defendant's incarceration. The Court upheld a public reprimand, suspension from office without
pay for thirty (30) days, and an assessment of a (one thousand dollar) $1,000.00 fine.
Page 8 of13
)
Respondent made disparaging insults, that were racially divisive, utilizing his position as
a judge and publicly commented about a pending case before him. Current cultural climate
recognizes the importance of racial equality and unity. Blasting racially disparaging divisive
comments to the world wide web renders anyone who reads Judge Carlos Moore,s comments his
the Mississippi Bar, and the Tennessee Bar. Please see the timeline below.
12/2020 Private Reprimand over Respondent's use of social media - Respondent agreed
his actions constituted misconduct and agreed to corrective measures but did not timely do so.
4/2022 Public Reprimand over Respondent's use of his judicial position to further his
7/2023 Failed to timely appear or be properly dressed for his public reprimand in
Grenada County.
Respondent is nothing if not consistent in his predictability in his complete and utter
disdain for any professional conduct rule or Canon of Judicial Conduct. His patterns are clear
and clearly indicate the likelihood that he will continue in his same fashion if not removed and
Page 9 of 13
,-. suspended from accepting future positions for a period of time, such to protect the public.
(
(5) Whether the conduct was willful, intended to deprive the public of assets, or if it
exploited the judge's position
In jettisoning the former "moral turpitude" factor and substituting in its place this factor
for consideration, the Supreme Court had before it a complaint in which the judge recused himself
from cases, then reinserted himself and took further action in those very same cases; that judge
was further found to have abused his contempt power by issuing arrest warrants for indirect
criminal contempt with knowledge that doing so violated the parties' due process rights. Miss.
Comm 'non Judicial Performance v. Skinner, 119 So. 3d 294,300. (Miss. 2013).
In explicating what should be considered in evaluating whether or not the conduct was
In examining the extent to which the conduct was willful, we will examine
"whether the judge acted in bad faith, good faith, intentionally, knowingly, or
/ __ ) negligently." In re Coffey's Case, 157 N.H. 156. 949 A.2d 102, 115
(2008) (quoting AJS Study). "[M]isconduct that is the result of deliberation is
generally more serious than that of a spontaneous nature." In re Coffey's Case, 949
A.2d at 115-16. For example, spontaneous conduct, such as provoked conduct,
may fall on one end of the spectrum, and may indiGate a lesser sanction. Planned,
premeditated conduct may fall on the opposite end of the spectrum, indicating the
appropriateness of a harsher sanction. Conduct that is knowing and/or deliberate,
but not the result of premeditation, may fall between spontaneous and premeditated
conduct.
The Respondent's intentional use of his "Judge Carlos Moore" social media accounts
clearly exploited his judicial position. Further, he was on The Kelly Clarkson Show specifically
to discuss his judicial role when he made racially disparaging insults, that were racially divisive.
Respondent previously signed MOU 1 acknowledging misconduct and agreeing to stop utilizing
Page 10 of 13
(6) The presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating factors
There is a plethora of aggravating factors here, the overall theme of which is a complete
disregard for the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct, the Commission, and the Mississippi
Supreme Court. Despite previously agreeing these actions constitute misconduct, Respondent is
Respondent was told to stop publicly discussing pending cases before him on social media
change the name of his social media and/or remove inappropriate content.4 He did not do so until
after July of 2022, after this Complaint was filed against him. The Mississippi Supreme Court
has multiple cases holding that racially disparaging remarks are a violation of the Mississippi Code
of Judicial Conduct. Respondent still made such comments. Respondent was ordered to attend
and receive a Public Reprimand in both Coahoma County and Grenada County. Respondent
appeared in Coahoma County. Respondent only appeared in Grenada County after the judge
contacted him and ordered his appearance. He appeared late and dressed in blue jeans.
Respondent chose not to participate in this case until the eve of trial and that was to request a delay.
When asked to produce evidence of a conflict, he presented a flyer advertising the 2023 CBCF
Inc. Annual Legislative Conference Reception for the day before the hearing.s Respondent did
not file an Answer. Respondent did not answer ANY of the Commission's propounded discovery.
4 MOU 1 was intended to prevent him from lending the prestige of his office to further his personal interest.
5 There was also a comment about National Bar Association having its Board of Directors Meeting with no further
details.
Page 11 of13
_j
squandered each of them. He has agreed that he violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and
accepted increasingly severe discipline - until now. Now he says that be is "before the
Commission because of comments he made - if made by other Judges would not have risen to this
level." Now he chooses more racially divisive assertions based on no evidence whatsoever. His
repeated actions have risen to this level. He doesn't mind public reprimands. He doesn't mind
fines . As long as he can keep his platform of the bench. His actions require removal and
suspension from accepting or seeking judicial office for a period of time sufficient to allow the
RECOMMENDATION
30. Applying the Skinner factors together with previous sanctions imposed on
Respondent and others, Commission asserts that removal, significant suspension, a Public
Reprimand, and a fine with costs are proper .6 The primary purpose of judicial sanctions is not to
punish the individual judge but to restore and maintain the dignity and honor of the judicial office
and to protect the public against future excesses. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v.
Guest, 717 So. 2d 325, 329 (Miss. 1998). Lesser sanctions have not been enough to accomplish
that where Respondent insists on repeating history. Nothing less than removal, suspension, public
reprimand, and a fine will restore and maintain the dignity and honor of the judicial office to protect
Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to "remove
6 While a pennanent ban was discussed with Respondent, upon further research the Commission found where Miss.
Comm'11 on Judicial Performance v. Darby, 143 So. 3d 564 (Miss. 2014) indicated that the Mississippi
Constitution does not expressly empower the Mississippi Supreme Court to order a prohibition which "prohibited
from holding judicial office in the future." Thus, instead ofrecommending a permanent ban or prohibition from ever
holding judicial office in the future, the Commission is recommending a time specified suspension in addition to
removal.
Page 12 of 13
.J
from office, suspend, tine or publie,ly censure or reprimand any jusiic.e or judge of this state ...''
This Court is not limited to one of the options. lbis Court has routinely upheld one or more of
the available options with a public reprimand. In Mississippi c1,iudge traditionally has either been
suspended or removed, not both. However, in Miss. Comm 'n on Judicial Performance v.
Osborne, 11 So. 3d 107 (Miss. 2009), Osborne had left the bench by the time the Court issued its
decision, but the Court still detennined a one {I) year suspension was warranted despite the judge
already having been effectively removed from the bench because the actions warranted it.
The Commission recommends a public reprimand, removal from office, suspension for six
(6) years, and a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) fine plus costs.
MISSISSI CO:MMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
Page 13 of 13
_)