New York Family Court Judge Bryan Hedges, 65, thought that he had resigned from the bench in Onondaga County in April after allegations that he sexually abuse with 5-year-old deaf niece. However, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct decided to retroactively remove him from the bench and bar him from ever holding a judicial office again in the state of New York despite that fact that the incident occurred 40 years ago and before he become an attorney. It presents an interesting case on the reach of judicial ethics for judges.
The case arose after the girl’s mother (the sister of Hedge’s wife) went to Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick to report the alleged 1972 encounter. It is unclear why she took this long to make such a report. However, the police then arranged for her to tape conversations with Hedges, including one where he reportedly conceded that his behavior was “abhorrent,” “totally wrong,” “indefensible” and “very, very, very bad.”
Ellen Cantwell Warner is now 45 and has been deaf and unable to communicate except through sign language and writing since suffering a viral infection in utero. She recently spoke of her abuse and says that the discipline had helped her in her healing process.
The alleged misconduct was described by the Commission:
In 1972, when she was approximately five years old, E. and her family visited her grandmother’s home in Albany. On that occasion, as she was wandering around the house that morning, E. walked upstairs and through the open door to a third-floor bedroom, where respondent was lying on the bed. Respondent was masturbating on the bed.
E. entered the room, got onto the bed and knelt next to respondent. As respondent has acknowledged, E. touched his hand which was on his exposed penis. As he has further acknowledged, respondent continued to masturbate for two to four seconds, with E.’s hand on top of his hand, before he stopped.
Hedges reportedly admitted that the touching occurred but challenged the claim that it violated judicial ethics and challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. The act occurred before he became an attorney in 1973. Moreover, there were slight differences in the accounts:
The record before us contains two renditions of what occurred. E. recalls that respondent encouraged her to enter the room and placed her hand on his penis. Respondent denies that he encouraged her to enter the room or guided her hand, and he states that she touched his hand. The events in question occurred 40 years ago, when E. was five years old. Obviously, she recalled a traumatic event. Although the referee found E.’ s testimony to be credible, it is sufficient for our purposes to conclude that even if the facts are as respondent has testified, his actions are indefensible (as he acknowledges) and are a sufficient basis upon which to render this determination.
It is interesting that the police would investigate the matter since the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution expired on such a crime 22 years ago. They could not prosecute even if they wanted to. The decision to put a wire on someone to investigate an unprosecutable crime could raise concerns over the potential threat of abuse in some cases (even if understandable in this case). While at the time this was a sitting judge, there remains the question of the jurisdiction to investigate matters that cannot as a matter of law result in a criminal charge. Ultimately, Fitzpatrick turned the matter over to the commission and Hedges filed for retirement after being informed by the commission that it was investigating.
Commission administrator Robert Tembeckjian described the case as uncommon and “”makes public a horrible 40-year secret that, had it been known, would likely have prevented Mr. Hedges from being a judge in the first place.”
The commission found 7-2 that the lifetime ban was warranted given Hedges “admitted sexual act with a defenseless child.” Such “abhorrent” acts, it found are “not attenuated by the passage of time.”
Hedges however says the allegations are “untrue” and says that he will contest the recommendation. The Commission found that Hedges violated §§100.1 and 100.2(A) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. Section 100.1 requires judges to “uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.” Section 101.2(A) stipulates that “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.” These rules were obviously written with the expectation that they address acts while a judge but the Commission found that they are not limited to such tenure. However, the interesting question is the application not only 13 years before a person was a judge but before a person was an attorney. Was he under an obligation then as a layperson to meet the standards for a judge? The opinion does not delve into such obvious questions. One possible counterargument would be that he became a lawyer and a judge on false pretenses by not revealing the incident.
There is a strong dissent by Commission Member Joel Cohen who does not question the jurisdiction of the Commission. However, he noted that Hedges had agreed not to seek another judicial office and the ” the alacrity with which he resigned his judgeship” after being informed o the investigation. He noted that, at Cohen’s urging, Hedges even waived confidentiality to make the incident public — guaranteeing that this “grossly unsympathetic figure” would never hold any office of any kind. Yet, Cohen accused the Commission to seeking to punish him rather than protect the bench, which is its sole function in such a case.
The record before us contains two renditions of what occurred. E. recalls that respondent encouraged her to enter the room and placed her hand on his penis. Respondent denies that he encouraged her to enter the room or guided her hand, and he states that she touched his hand. The events in question occurred 40 years ago, when E. was five years old. Obviously, she recalled a traumatic event. Although the referee found E.’ s testimony to be credible, it is sufficient for our purposes to conclude that even if the facts are as respondent has testified, his actions are indefensible (as he acknowledges) and are a sufficient basis upon which to render this determination.
What do you think about the decision and the jurisdiction of both the prosecutor and the Commission in such a case?
Here is the opinion: Hedges.Bryan.R.2012.08.17.DET
Source: NY Law JournalJudge
“An interesting case on the reach of judicial ethics for judges.”
And every -once in- a while we are spoon fed the punishments of the judiciary “by the judiciary” and we are supposed to know and believe that ethics abound, that “no-one is above the law,” that they are actively and forcefully being pro-active: That routing out the illegal, the Corrupt; the Un-Constitutional, and the Human rights abuses is their cause, their crusade, their celeb.
Many, many of us know that this is merely a superficial stance designed to appease! Many of us know and have experiences which clearly, clearly demonstrates the Hitlarian tendencies right at the forefront, and we know that there is NO, THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES OF LEGALITIES AND GOODNESS! WE ARE AWARE OF THE FARCE, AND THE CONTINUING LIE, THAT IS…AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE.
THE DEAD U.S CONSTITUION ADVOCATES!
Elizabeth Juanita Campbell
JMQ said, “Has there been any indication he abused any other children?”
I don’t think any child molester ever molests just one child. (http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/05/pedophiles-things-you-ought-to-know/)
This man should be thoroughly investigated.
There is precedent regarding waiving the statute of limitations for juvenile victims in med malpractice cases. If there was malpractice involving a birth, sometimes the damages aren’t presented until the child goes to school and is tested. Once the damages are presented is when the statute of limitations clock starts.
Of course this guy’s session with Saint Peter, or the deaf stand-in, wont just cover this one incident. Since he is a judge, or was one, then one must ask if he ever sentenced any defendant in a criminal case to death. Saint Peter aint up there reading some Sears Roebuck version of the Bible. He reads the Sixth Commandment as “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” This is written in stone. No wiggle room for nuts who want to violate the Commandment and kill humans who were killers or rapists. Every judge, every juror, who has sentenced someone to death is looking at Hell when their time comes. Every Governor who has not pardoned the defendant and kills him will also rot in Hell. Rick Perry, that means you. Especially for that retarded guy who you killed and that one who was innocent. This is not rocket science.
When an adult male is masturbating and a child walks into the room, he should stop immediately. If he wants to continue, he should escort the child to the door and shut it behind her. This is not rocket science, people.
He’s 65. Since this happened 40 years ago, he was 25 at the time. Not exactly a teenager with no self control. Who masturbates with the door open? Not sure I trust the memory of a 5-year old after 40 years. Why wait so long to report this? Has there been any indication he abused any other children? Lots of questions needing answers…
Hedges was 25 and a student at Syracuse University School of Law at the time of the incident. He was admitted to the bar in 1973. A former assistant Onondaga County district attorney, he was elected to Family Court in 1984.
I reviewed NY’s criminal code and found it difficult to make a solid criminal case against what has been alleged. Note that I don’t have immediate access to the statutes of 40 years ago, but using today’s this seems to fall between the cracks of the various crimes’ elements. Even if the statute of limitations was not an issue.
This case would be easily prosecuted in WA, due to the language of this state’s sex offense laws, had there not been the statute of limitations issue.
I agree this man’s conduct was depraved in a moral sense.
I also would agree with Mark, this harks of a star chamber type prosecution. Essentially the judicial review commission is effectively making an ex post facto law. I agree with the professor the only standing they might have would be to make some reference to his lying on his application process to become a judge but since he was not convicted of a crime I don’t see the applicability.
The retroactivity seems to be, though I have no information to establish this, an attempt to deprive this man of pension benefits. There must be some other dynamic in effect beyond what the actual alleged violation is.
This has the potential to make a precident in the courts the state will find inconvenient.
“If she actually crawled up on the bed, watched him & put her hand on him how traumatizing was the event?”
She was a kid. Kid’s don’t act like adults. It’s entirely possible that she didn’t want to, but he talked her into it. If the allegations are true, there’s exactly one person involved that was responsible, and it wasn’t the kid.
In cases like this Saint Peter usually has a stand-in who is deaf. All of us dogs who were reincarnated and had prior lives as humans know about these things. Coming back as a dog in America is a choice that the stand-in, or Peter if you catch him on Wednesday before golf, will only grant to humans who led good lives. This guy aint got a prayer–no pun intended.
Perhaps this action will deny him the right to a pension. He quickly retired when it came up. His real interview will occur post life when he goes to the Pearly Gates and has to answer to Saint Peter or the stand-in. Then he will be sweating and thinking about some heat worse than retiring without a pension. There aint no room in Limbo for this guy. It will be Hell and Damnation.
Insanity reigns supreme! Considering that this judge quickly “retired” when this came up, it looks like he might have more to hide. With that said, if this is all that happened and it’s been over 40 yrs prosecuting now would be questionable at best.
Speaking of statute of limitations have you seen the case of Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama. He was prosecuted & convicted for a non-crime (appointing a donor to a position that he had held under 3 previous governors) and is now heading back to prison for another 6 yrs unless the corrupt DOJ intervenes or a presidential pardon. The statute of limitations was long pass on this one too. It’s amazing that this case continues and is ignored by the SC and everything between. It is a direct result of the corrupt Attorneys generals appointed by Bush (Karl Rove/Dick Cheney)… a vile political prosecution that defies the imagination.
If Don Siegelman is guilty then so is Obama and every other person holding political office who has appointed a donor to a position.
http://www.DonSiegelman.org
Abusing a deaf child may not be a cardinal sin, but it’s certainly a mortal sin. However, I have no desire to debate inane Catholic “sintencing” guidelines.
Mespo I think you’re right….
While no one would condone the act, this seems more a report from the Star Chamber than Commission on Judicial Conduct. It is not a criminal court and I’d like to know what Judge Hedges was like as a judge and not what happened 40 years ago. People make mistakes; people change; not every sin is mortal.
I’m wondering whos. Ox is really being gored….. There are things here that are as clear a milk….. If they’re going after him for this….there is a whole church as well as wall street for lots of wrong doing….. Where’s Dano when you need him….
Tough cases can make bad law.
Frankly you could be right that we don’t know all the facts yet. Disgusting story.
He is not above the Law
There are so many bizarre twists to this story I don’t even know where to begin.
Didn’t he close the door before pleasuring himself?
If she actually crawled up on the bed, watched him & put her hand on him how traumatizing was the event?
Why wouldn’t he have stopped?
Why did mom decide to bring this up now 40 years later?
How old was he at the time?
As stupid as this act was (no matter the circumstances it was stupid beyond belief) wouldn’t the absence of additional acts suggest leniency? Could he be hiding something worse?
There has to be more to this story that we are not hearing