ÿWPC)  zÍÎ1>‰û†Ó‘û Ûß;QÿiT¢ã±kÓOðâ>“,ZHr*Ç•_º»¸‹¡„]‰8?F­ÎPr ïã·làOqìð½À¹ÉkïN.œoÈJ4ù¾&¤´„HÝ0½Ÿ”ýä €ÄóâóA§í¢âš‰|7Š|dÂC’õQ"z_~hu&NÙçÏ|zqRal°ò‰.–¡#ZЩRö(ÑvÖ\ÝZ}ÓžûÍÉ2WÌSÉæˆàó‘ÙWÔá¯aL3ü]ôëfâÂ4¶Î+”q!ÚÌ+­…TäHÐUå©À"¸Â^! Þ‹œ# ÕÈíßP4rÁ-¾`<|¸ƒëô“%_ Q“•» @›ävsw¼Š‚Æm)qz„¥fŽ‚¤a=ÊJƒ<|ØÀÔ”">Jqy™Z¨·È žŒ:ûµkÉU»]ÜëÞ )ÄIo4^Ðÿ=`ìAõÏ#As7Þ~¯؇Òýõ„N>žcU¨Œ óÅÞák»åiwì¬-ý_¤jºD¯vô¦ª‹ÖÇÆäÃ}xMÝ”@—AÑW*›â>¿”ÆYlæâ4ÿœ½š­òNgœÓЧ†‹bv Ýî#µ—¿ ucB’·uZ•˜Õç™þðæÚå<ù ï4#!ØUNù %G 0(MUNu^ Ãw@Ï4#b2::e t~ m€—NŸÆ¡ 0egÌ 0l\ 0DÈ È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È È B ˜HP LaserJet 8000 N PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡xÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular]r©,á ¬ ­ D® ¯ D° ± D² ³ D´ ]µ 6ИA'ê:i¢Ø+003|xµ - ù- 0Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ I., II.,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#)N2Quick I.ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€Û †Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€Contrary€to€the€press€release,€Horton€was€twenty„one€at€the€time.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XÊvXXXÔÑ€ ¦3ÑÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òBEFORE€THE€COMMISSION€ON€JUDICIAL€CONDUCTó óÐ œì ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ñ¯ ñ€€ñ¯ ñ€ò òñ­ ññ« ñRE:ñ« ññ­ ññ® ñIN€THEñ® ñ€ó óÔ#†XÊvXXXÊv+#ÔÔ‡XÊvXXXÊvÔ€ò òMATTER€OF€THE€HONORABLE€MARIA€I.€LOPEZ,ó óÐ xÈ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òñ¬ ñ€€€ñ¬ ññ° ñ€ñ° ñASSOCIATE€JUSTICE,€SUPERIOR€COURT€DEPARTMENTó óÐ h¸ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òòòRESPONSE€TO€CHARGESóóó óÐ D ” ÐÌà  àThe€Honorable€Maria€I.€Lopez,€Associate€Justice€of€the€Superior€Court€Department,Ïhereby€responds€to€the€charges€issued€by€the€Commission€on€Judicial€Conduct€(ð ðCommissionðð).ÌÌà  àJudge€Lopez€denies€that€she€engaged€in€the€pattern€of€conduct€alleged€by€the€CommissionÏto€be€prejudicial€to€the€administration€of€justice€and€unbecoming€a€judicial€officer,€and€that€sheÏviolated€Massachusetts€General€Laws,€chapter€2ñ± ñ2ñ± ññ² ñ1ñ² ñ1C,€ðððð€2(5)(d)€and€2(5)(e).ÌÌà@úú$ìàò òCASE€HISTORYó óˆÐ ”ä  ÐÌà  àThe€Commissionððs€charges€are€founded€on€affirmatively€false€and€materially€misleadingÏallegations€concerning€events€in€òòCommonwealth€v.€Charles€(Ebony)€Hortonóó€and€its€aftermath.Ð X¨ ÐThe€false€picture€presented€results€from€a€variety€of€improper€and€biased€investigatory€techniquesÏaimed€at€arriving€at€a€pre„conceived€result€that€is€wholly€at€odds€with€a€fair€and€accurate€picture.ÏThe€following€facts€are€true.ÌÌà  à1.€On€Monday,€November€22,€1999,€the€Dorchester€District€Court€issued€a€criminalÏcomplaint€against€Horton€alleging€rape€and€abuse€of€a€child€under€16,€kidnaping,€and€assault€andÏbattery€by€means€of€a€dangerous€weapon.€Horton€had€been€arrested€on€Saturday,€November€20,Ï1999,€which€the€complaint€alleged€to€be€the€date€of€the€offense.€The€Committee€for€PublicÏCounsel€Services€was€appointed€to€represent€Horton.€The€Suffolk€District€Attorneyððs€Office€didÏòònotóó€move€the€Court€for€an€order€that€Horton€be€held€without€bail€based€on€dangerousness€to€theÐ à Ðcommunity.€The€Court€set€a€bail€in€an€amount€that€Horton€was€unable€to€post.€As€a€result,€HortonÏwas€remanded€to€the€custody€of€the€Suffolk€County€Sheriff€to€await€further€proceedings€and€hisÏtrial.ÌÌà  à2.€€Through€counsel,€Horton€appealed€to€the€Superior€Court€for€a€reduction€in€the€bailÏamount€set€by€the€Dorchester€District€Court.€The€District€Attorney€again€did€òònotóó€seek€an€orderÐ $h" Ðthat€Horton€be€held€without€bail€due€to€dangerousness.€A€Superior€Court€Justice€€(not€JudgeÏLopez)€reduced€the€bail,€which€was€then€posted€by€Hortonððs€family.€On€December€29,€1999,ÏHorton€was€released€under€conditions€monitored€by€the€Probation€Department,€including€aÏcurfew.ÌÌà  à3.€€On€January€12,€2000,€a€Suffolk€County€indictment€was€returned€charging€Horton€withÏkidnaping,€assault€with€intent€to€rape€a€child€under€16,€indecent€assault€and€battery€on€a€childÏunder€14,€assault€and€battery,€and€assault€and€battery€by€means€of€a€dangerous€weapon.€HortonÏappeared€in€response€to€a€summons€for€arraignment€on€January€26,€2000.€€Again,€the€prosecutionÏdid€not€seek€a€dangerousness€adjudication.€Horton€remained€free€on€bail€since€December€29,Ð P- (, ÐÑ ¦3Ñâ  âÑ8€ÊvXXdìXXdì8ÑÑ€ Ñâ  âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ ¦3Ñâ  âÑ8€ÊvXXdìXXdì8ÑÑ€ Ñâ  âÑ  Ñ1999.Ô#†XÊvXXXÊvF#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)Ô€On€May€11,€2000,€the€Court€(not€Judge€Lopez)€granted€Hortonððs€motion€for€the€services€ofÐ ° Ða€psychologist€or€psychiatrist€to€aid€in€his€defense.€€ÌÌà  à4.€€The€case,€with€Horton€appearing€in€person,€first€came€before€Judge€Lopez€on€AugustÏ1,€2000.€On€that€date,€Judge€Lopez€conferred€at€the€sidebar€with€the€prosecutor,€AssistantÏDistrict€Attorney€¢Leora£€Joseph,€and€Hortonððs€appointed€counsel,€Anne€C.€¢Goldbach£€Esquire,Ïconcerning€the€sentence€that€would€be€imposed€in€the€event€Horton€were€to€plead€guilty.€As€isÏcommonly€and€customarily€the€case,€what€was€said€during€the€plea€conference€was€not€recordedÏby€electronic€or€any€other€means.€Neither€party€requested€that€the€conference€be€recorded.€DuringÏthe€conference,€both€prosecutor€and€defense€counsel€made€representations€to€Judge€LopezÏconcerning€what€they€believed€the€evidence€would€show€concerning€the€offenses.€Judge€LopezÏread€copies€of€the€police€reports€and€statements€given€to€the€police.€€As€is€often€true,€each€sideððsÏrepresentations€concerning€what€the€evidence€would€show€conflicted€to€some€degree€with€theÏother.€However,€there€was€no€dispute€concerning€the€age€of€the€victim.€Contrary€to€the€falseÏstatement€in€the€Commissionððs€charges,€the€victim€was€not€eleven€years€old€at€the€time€of€theÏoffenses;€instead,€on€the€date€of€the€offenses,€the€male€victim€was€seven€weeks€short€of€hisÏthirteenth€birthday.€Judge€Lopez€was€also€provided€with€information€concerning€Horton,Ïincluding€the€Probation€Departmentððs€criminal€history€record€of€him.€In€the€presence€of€AssistantÏDistrict€Attorney€Joseph,€defense€counsel€¢Goldbach£€provided€Judge€Lopez€with€a€written€psycho„¼social€assessment€and€a€proposed€¢dispositional£€plan€signed€by€the€Director€of€Social€Services€ofÏthe€Committee€for€Public€Counsel€Services€who€is€a€board„certified,€licensed€independent€socialÏworkerò ò.ó ó€€Defense€counsel€offered€ADA€Joseph€a€copy€of€this€document,€but€she€refused€to€acceptÐ  \ Ðit.€€The€defenseððs€report€included€information€and€an€assessment€concerning€HortonððsÏpsychological€condition,€and€his€developmental,€family,€social,€educational€and€vocational€history.ÏThe€report€included€assessments€to€the€effect€that€òòthe€risk€that€Horton€would€repeat€the€offenseÐ Ô$ Ðbehavior€was€low€and€the€risk€of€serious€harm€to€Horton€if€imprisoned€was€highóó.€òòThere€was€noÐ À Ðinformation€in€the€report€indicating€that€Hortonððs€mental€illness€would€make€him€likely€to€repeatÏsexual€abuse€of€anyoneóó.€€ADA€Joseph€did€not€object€to€the€defenseððs€submission€of€the€report€toÐ ˜è ÐJudge€Lopez€for€the€courtððs€consideration€in€determining€what€sentence€would€be€imposed€in€theÏevent€of€a€guilty€plea.€Neither€did€ADA€Joseph€request€that€the€District€Attorneyððs€office€beÏallowed€to€engage€a€qualified€professional€to€interview€Horton€and€investigate€Hortonððs€conditionÏand€report€the€results€of€a€prosecution„obtained€evaluation€to€the€Court.€€Hence,€òòthe€defenseððsÐ H!˜ Ðpsycho„social€report€was€¢unrebutted£óó.€Both€parties€made€recommendations€concerning€theÐ 4"„  Ðappropriate€sentence€in€the€event€that€Horton€were€to€plead€guilty€and€were€given€a€full€and€fairÏopportunity€to€be€heard€concerning€the€reasons€for€their€respective€sentencing€recommendations.ÌÌà  à5.€€€After€carefully€considering€and€weighing€ð"ð€€in€light€of€her€twelve€years€of€experienceÏas€a€judge€ð"ð€€all€of€the€information€and€advocacy€presented,€Judge€Lopez€informed€both€partiesÏthat,€if€Horton€were€to€plead€guilty€as€charged,€the€Court€would€impose€a€probationary€sentence.ÏIn€reaching€this€decision,€Judge€Lopez€was€not€affected€by€bias,€nor€by€any€extraneous€orÏinappropriate€factor€or€information.€Instead,€Judge€Lopez€relied€upon€many€wholly€appropriateÏconsiderations€based€exclusively€on€the€information€presented€by€the€parties€in€court,€includingÏbut€not€limited€to€the€nature€and€amount€of€the€sexual€acts€involved,€the€presence€or€absence€andÐ l+¼&* Ðthe€level€of€any€violence,€and€the€age€of€€and€harm€done€to€the€victim.€Based€on€the€informationÏpresented€in€court,€Judge€Lopez€also€determined€that€the€offenses€did€not€constitute€actsÏevidencing€that€Horton€was€a€pedophile,€much€less€a€dangerous€pedophile,€nor€a€person€whoÏwould€likely€repeat€the€offenses.€This€conclusion€was€supported€by€the€fact€that€nothing€inÏHortonððs€offenses€and€history€demonstrated€a€desire€to€perform€sexual€acts€involving€pre„¼pubescent€children.€Another€important€factor€was€the€¢unrebutted£€evidence€that€Horton€sufferedÏfrom€a€gender„identity€disorder,€a€scientifically„recognized€psychological€disorder€which€isÏdifferent€from,€and€not€associated€with,€¢pedophilia£€nor€with€sexual€abuse€of€anyone,€includingÏpost„pubescent€adolescents.€Upon€hearing€Judge€Lopezððs€decision,€Defense€Counsel€¢Goldbach£Ïstated€that€she€would€consult€with€Horton€as€to€whether€to€plead€guilty€as€charged€and€agree€toÏaccept€the€probationary€sentence€set€out€in€the€courtððs€decision.€The€parties€scheduled€a€hearingÏfor€August€4,€2000,€in€the€Suffolk€County€Superior€Court,€by€which€time€Horton€would€decideÏwhether€to€proffer€his€guilty€pleas€and€be€sentenced€as€stated€by€the€court.Ì€€€€Ìà  à6.€€Upon€her€arrival€on€August€4,€2000,€Judge€Lopez€saw€that€a€television€camera€hadÏalready€been€set€up€in€the€courtroom€without€her€having€been€asked,€and€without€her€having€givenÏthe€legally€required€prior€judicial€approval.€Judge€Lopez€also€saw€that€a€substantial€number€ofÏreporters€were€present.€She€was€told€that€Horton€and€his€mother€had€become€upset€when€theyÏencountered€unruly€press€cameras€and€reporters€inside€the€courthouse,€and€that€they€had€gone€toÏanother€floor€while€awaiting€commencement€of€the€hearing.€Judge€Lopez€then€conducted€a€non„¼public€lobby€conference€with€ADA€¢Leora£€Joseph€and€defense€counsel€Anne€¢Goldbach£.€In€answerÏto€Judge€Lopezððs€questions,€ADA€Joseph€denied€having€caused€the€courtroom€press€coverage.€ÏJudge€Lopez€did€not€believe€ADA€Joseph.€Judge€Lopez€believed€from€her€experience€andÏcommon€sense€that€the€prosecutor€was€the€only€one€with€an€interest€in€causing€media€interest€inÏthe€case€and€that€she€would€be€the€most€likely€person€to€cause€media€interest.€€Ô#†X™)XXX™)#ÔAnother€reason€forÐ Ð  ÐJudge€Lopezððs€belief€that€ADA€Joseph€had€not€been€honest€and€candid€with€the€court€was€thatÏADA€Joseph€had€in€the€past€engaged€in€a€pattern€of€attempting€to€use€press€coverage,€rather€thanÏpersuasive€evidence€and€advocacy€in€court,€to€influence€judicial€decisions.€For€example,€ADAÏJoseph€had€given€a€press€interview€in€which€she€attacked€Judge€Lopezððs€sentencing€decisions€inÏtwo€prior€cases€that€ADA€Joseph€had€prosecuted:€€òòCommonwealth€v.€Edwin€¢Estrada£óó€andÐ l¼ ÐòòCommonwealth€v.€Marie€¢Calixte£.€óóòòSeeóó€Eileen€McNamara,€ð ðTwo€Tier€Justice€Hurts€Children,ðð€òòTheÐ X ¨ ÐBoston€Globeóó,€February€14,€1999.€The€testimony€of€Assistant€District€Attorney€David€DeakinÐ D!” Ðbefore€the€Commission€confirms€that€Judge€Lopezððs€negative€credibility€assessment€of€ADAÏJosephððs€protestations€concerning€her€lack€of€a€role€in€causing€the€press€coverage€of€the€òòHortonóóÐ #l! Ðcase€was€correct.Ìà  àÌà  à7.€Judge€Lopez€thus€was€rightly€angered€by€ADA€Josephððs€proven€lack€of€candor€towardÏthe€tribunal.€Having€in€mind€that€ADA€Joseph€had€failed€at€the€òòHortonóó€plea€conference€to€rebutÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€defenseððs€proffer€of€evidence€when€given€a€full€and€fair€opportunity€to€do€so,€and€also€thatÏADA€Joseph€was€attempting€to€use€the€pressure€of€press€coverage,€rather€than€relevant€evidenceÏand€effective€advocacy€to€support€the€prosecutionððs€sentencing€position,€Judge€Lopez€admonishedÏMs.€Joseph€during€the€lobby€conference.€Judge€Lopez€correctly€believed€that€Ms.€Joseph€meritedÏstrong€criticism€for€her€lack€of€candor€and€poor€professionalism.€Judges€throughout€theÐ h+¸&* ÐCommonwealth€often€criticize€and€praise€counsel€concerning€their€performance.€The€statementsÏmade€by€Judge€Lopez€to€ADA€Joseph€were€neither€improper€nor€evidence€of€bias.€Given€ADAÏJosephððs€attempt€to€manipulate€and€pressure€the€court€through€media€pressure€rather€than€byÏcredible€evidence€and€persuasive€arguments,€Judge€Lopezðð€admonition€of€her€was€mild.ÌÌà  à8.€€Judge€Lopez€decided€to€postpone€the€August€4,€2000€òòHorton€óóguilty€plea€andÐ L œ Ðsentencing,€which€the€prosecution€opposed.€Judge€Lopez€stated€truthfully€that€she€had€a€crowdedÏcalendar€of€bail€matters€that€afternoon€and€other€things€to€do.€€According€to€Suffolk€CountyÏrecords,€there€were€eighteen€bail€appeals€to€be€heard€that€afternoon.€€At€the€request€of€theÏCommonwealth,€Judge€Lopez€made€written€findings€for€the€court€record,€listing€additionalÏreasons€for€the€postponement.€Judge€Lopezððs€findings€were€accurate€and€fully€supported€byÏincidents€that€occurred€in€Judge€Lopezððs€presence€and€by€reliable€information€Judge€LopezÏreceived.€Among€other€things,€Judge€Lopez€found€that€(1)€ð ðADA€Joseph.,€unhappy€with€theÏCourtððs€disposition,€called€the€press€in.€Ms.€Joseph€has€a€habit€of€doing€thisðð;€(2)€ð ðThe€Court€findsÏthat€ADA€Joseph€attempted€to€embarrass€and€ridicule€a€defendant€suffering€from€a€psychologicalÏdisorder;ðð€and€(3)€ð ðThe€Court€finds€that€the€Commonwealth€caused€this€continuance€because€itÏsought€to€turn€the€court€proceedings€into€a€circus.ððÌÌà  à9.€Judge€Lopezðð€conclusion€that€ADA€Joseph€was€seeking€to€pressure€Judge€Lopez€toÏchange€the€sentence€announced€at€the€plea€hearing,€and€was€seeking€to€do€so€by€mediaÏmanipulation€rather€than€by€the€presentation€of€evidence€and€argument,€is€further€bolstered€byÏimportant€facts€and€applicable€law.€€Although€Judge€Lopez€was€unaware€of€it€at€the€time€that€sheÏmade€her€findings,€the€Suffolk€County€District€Attorneyððs€Office€issued€on€August€3,€2000,€aÏpress€release€which€stated,€in€pertinent€part,€that€ð ðò òCharles€Horton,€31,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€¢transgendered£€personÐ ä4 Ðwho€appears€as€a€woman,€is€expected€to€plead€guilty€before€Judge€Maria€Lopez€in€SuffolkÏSuperior€Court€room€21,€15òòthóó€Floor,€tomorrow€at€about€10€a.m.ó óðð€(emphasis€in€original).Ð À ÐIndeed,€the€Commission€heard€testimony€from€ADA€David€Deakin€that€he€regretted€the€pressÏreleaseððs€reference€to€the€fact€that€Mr.€Horton€suffers€from€gender€identity€disorder.€The€pressÏrelease€was€clearly€designed€to€turn€the€court€proceedings€into€a€media€circus€and€freak€showÏdesigned,€among€other€purposes,€to€heighten€public€condemnation€of€Horton.€€By€issuing€theÏpress€release,€the€then„€District€Attorney€and€his€staff€violated€Massachusetts€Rule€of€ProfessionalÏConduct€3.8€entitled,€ò òð ðSpecial€Responsibilities€of€a€Prosecutorððó ó€which€states€in€subsection€(g):Ð L!œ ÐÌà0  àThe€prosecutor€in€a€criminal€case€shall:€ò ò(g)ó ó€except€for€statements€that€are€necessary€toÐ (#x! Ðinform€the€public€of€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€prosecutorððs€action€and€that€serve€aÏlegitimate€law€enforcement€purpose,€refrain€from€extrajudicial€comments€that€have€aÏsubstantial€likelihood€of€heightening€public€condemnation€of€the€accused.Ð (#(# ÐÌà  àThe€press€releaseððs€reference€to€Horton€as€a€ð ð¢transgendered£€person€who€appears€as€aÏwomanðð€was€neither€necessary€to€inform€the€public€of€the€nature€of€the€prosecutorððs€action,€norÏdid€it€serve€a€legitimate€law€enforcement€purpose.€Ð  )ð$( ЀÌà  àBy€postponing€the€August€4€hearing,€Judge€Lopez€discharged€her€affirmative€judicial€dutyÏto€prevent€the€then„€District€Attorney€and€his€staff€from€exploiting€their€unprofessionalÏmisconduct.€€She€also€acted€to€preserve€the€decorum€and€dignity€of€the€court€proceedings€and€toÏprevent€the€courthouse€and€courtroom€from€being€used€to€mock,€mistreat€and€endanger€aÏmentally€ill€person.€A€failure€to€do€precisely€what€Judge€Lopez€did€would€have€been€an€obviousÏdereliction€of€judicial€duty€under€the€circumstances.€To€charge€that€Judge€Lopez'€postponement€ofÏthe€plea€and€sentencing€hearing€was,€under€these€circumstances,€a€violation€rather€than€aÏcourageous€affirmation€of€her€judicial€duty,€constitutes€an€unhelpful,€counter„productive€andÏunfair€failure€to€recognize€the€true€nature€of€judicial€duty€and€independence€„„€a€systemic€failureÏthat€can€and€likely€will€come€back€to€haunt€an€independent€judiciary€in€the€future.€TheÏCommission's€charge€is€not€helpful€in€supporting€judges'€attempts€to€do€justice€in€difficult€casesÏwhere€public€and€media€opinion,€often€only€partially€informed,€threatens€to€turn€into€the€kind€ofÏexcess€that€a€civilized€and€independent€judicial€system€is€structured€and€tasked€to€curb.ÌÔ‡X™)XXX™)ԀР˜è  Ðà  à10.€On€September€6,€2000€ð"ð€the€date€of€the€rescheduled€òòHortonóó€plea€and€sentencingÐ „Ô  Ðhearing€ð"ð€€Judge€Lopez€arrived€in€the€Middlesex€County€courthouse€and€found€that,€again,€aÏtelevision€camera€had€been€installed€in€the€courtroom€without€her€approval€as€required€byÏSupreme€Judicial€Court€Rule€1:19.€€She€saw,€too,€that€there€were€numerous€media€personnelÏpresent€to€attend€proceedings€in€the€Horton€case.€Judge€Lopez€arranged€for€Horton€to€wait,€untilÏthe€case€would€be€called,€in€a€non„public€area€adjacent€to€the€courtroom.ÌÌà  à11.€The€Commission€charges€that€Judge€Lopezððs€pattern€of€judicial€misconduct€includedÏher€order€which€prevented€television€and€still€photographic€pictures€to€be€made€of€Horton€duringÏthe€court€proceedings€ð"ð€€even€though€she€allowed€cameras€in€the€courtroom€albeit€withÏnarrowly„drawn€limitations.Ô#†X™)XXX™)×@#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)Ô€€Supreme€Judicial€Court€Rule€1:19(a)€concerning€ð ðCameras€in€theÐ ¼  ÐCourtsðð€states,€in€part:€ð ðA€judge€may€limit€or€temporarily€suspend€such€news€media€coverage,€if€itÏappears€that€such€coverage€will€create€a€substantial€likelihood€of€harm€to€any€person€or€otherÏharmful€consequence.ðð€In€the€proper€and€lawful€exercise€of€the€authority€and€duty€granted€by€thisÏrule,€Judge€Lopez€signed€and€dated€a€September€6,€2000€order€which€she€read€to€the€media€in€theÏcourtroom€on€that€date.€The€order€states:ÌÌà0  àà ` àThe€Court€hereby€orders€that€the€press€is€not€permitted€to€take€pictures,€by€meansÏof€still€or€moving€cameras,€of€the€defendant.€The€Court€finds€that€the€defendant€suffersÏfrom€a€sexual€identity€disorder€and€is€emotionally€fragile.€The€taking€of€defendantððsÏphotograph€during€this€plea€will€create€a€substantial€likelihood€of€harm€to€the€defendant.ÏThe€matter€had€been€set€down€for€a€plea€previously€and€the€defendant€and€defendantððsÏmother€refused€to€get€off€the€elevators€when€they€saw€the€cameras.Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  àà ` àThe€publicððs€right€to€know€about€these€proceedings€will€not€be€affected€by€thisÏnarrow€limitation.€The€Court€sees€no€reason€why€the€appearance€of€the€defendant€is€ofÏinterest€to€the€public,€other€than€to€appeal€to€a€sense€of€perverse€curiosity.€There€are€noÏother€limitations€on€press€coverage€of€these€proceedings.Ðh+¸&*(#(# Їà0  àà ` àThe€Court€notes€that€the€media€did€not€give€reasonable€advance€notice€of€the€useÏof€cameras€as€required€by€Supreme€Judicial€Court€Rule€1:19(e).€Nevertheless,€given€theÏmediaððs€interest€in€an€otherwise€routine€case,€the€Court€does€not€exercise€itððs€[òòsicóó]€itsÐ ˆØ Ðdiscretion€to€exclude€them€altogether.Ð (#(# ÐÌJudge€Lopez€relied€upon€the€¢unrebutted£€psychological€evaluation€of€the€defendant€and€priorÏevents€in€the€case€as€the€basis€for€this€order.€€The€Commissionððs€groundless€charge€that€JudgeÏLopezððs€order€limiting€the€use€of€cameras€in€court€constitutes€part€of€a€pattern€of€judicialÏmisconduct€is,€in€reality,€part€of€a€pattern€of€the€Commissionððs€own€abuse€of€its€powers€andÏresponsibilities.€€Only€a€perversion€of€the€proper€role€of€the€Commission€could€result€in€anÏaccusation€directed€against€the€lawful,€fully€justified€ð"ð€and€rather€modest€ð"ð€conduct€of€JudgeÏLopez€in€limiting€(but€not€prohibiting)€television€coverage.€Judge€Lopez€acted€in€response€to€theÏprosecutorððs€unprofessional€tactics€designed€to€turn€the€proceedings€into€an€undignified€circus„¼like€freak€show€and€media€event€for€the€purpose€of€harming€the€defendant€and€improperlyÏinfluencing€the€courtððs€sentencing€decision.€ÌÌà  à12.€The€issue€here€is€not€whether€the€press,€including€television,€should€have€been€allowedÏto€cover€a€public€proceeding€such€as€the€òòHortonóó€sentencing;€of€course€the€press€was€free€to€do€so,Ð \¬ Ðand€Judge€Lopez€specifically€gave€such€permission,€with€very€modest€limitations,€even€though€theÏpress€had€violated€the€¢SJC£€rule€by€not€seeking€permission€in€advance.€Judge€Lopez€could€haveÏrefused€to€permit€cameras€in€the€courtroom€at€all,€but€she€did€not.€The€issue€is€not€even€whetherÏthe€District€Attorneyððs€office€has€the€right€to€notify€the€press€and€the€public€of€what€cases€areÏscheduled€for€hearing.€Rather,€in€this€case€the€judge€justifiably€became€angry€at€the€DistrictÏAttorneyððs€calling€in€the€news€media€in€a€context€and€in€a€manner€that€emphasized€the€emotionalÏand€physical€difficulties€of€the€defendant,€thereby€inviting€a€circus„like€freak€show.€This€unethicalÏploy€by€the€District€Attorney€predictably€threatened€not€only€the€defendantððs€well„being€but€alsoÏthe€dignity€and€decorum€of€the€courtroom.€The€District€Attorney€engaged€in€this€misconduct€forÏthe€purpose€of€seeking€to€pressure€a€judge€and€influence€a€sentence€that€the€District€AttorneyÏcould€instead€have€sought,€but€did€not€in€fact€seek,€to€influence€by€the€proper€presentation€ofÏrebuttal€evidence€to€contradict€the€crucial€expert€and€other€evidence€presented€by€the€defenseÏcounsel€to€Judge€Lopez€at€the€earlier€plea€conference.€Once€the€District€Attorney€and€his€staffÏchose€to€achieve€their€goal€by€improper€stoking€of€media€sensationalism,€all€at€the€expense€of€aÏhighly€vulnerable€and€ill€defendant€and€the€dignity€and€decorum€of€the€courthouse€and€courtroom,ÏJudge€Lopez€had€a€judicial€duty€to€respond.€She€did€so€in€an€appropriate€manner.€TheÏCommissionððs€charge€hinders,€rather€than€fosters,€achievement€of€essential€attributes€of€theÏjudicial€branch:€the€integrity€and€impartiality€of€judicial€proceedings,€and€judicial€independence.ÌÌà  à13.€The€Commission€charges€(Charge€II,€7):ÌÌà0  à€On€or€before€September€6,€2000€and€in€anticipation€of€what€she€viewed€as€unwelcomeÏpress€interest€in€the€òòHortonóó€case,€Judge€Lopez€made€special€arrangements€for€theÐ )à$( Ðdefendant€(but€not€for€the€victimððs€family)€to€enter€the€courthouse€and€utilize€a€backÏelevator€and€a€room,€neither€of€which€was€available€to€the€public€or€defense€counsel€in€theÐ h+¸&* Ðordinary€course€of€business.€The€Judge€made€these€arrangements€to€defeat€what€sheÏviewed€as€inappropriate€press€attention.€At€no€time€was€counsel€for€the€CommonwealthÏadvised€of€these€arrangements.Ð (#(# ÐÌThe€charging€document€displays€a€startling€lack€of€familiarity€with€courts€of€this€Commonwealth.ÏIn€many€of€our€state€courthouses,€including€those€in€Suffolk€and€Middlesex€Counties,€facilities€areÏprovided€for€prosecution€witnesses,€including€victims,€such€as€back€elevators€and€non„publicÏwaiting€rooms.€There€are€also€victim„witness€advocates€who€assist€prosecution€witnesses€in€theseÏrelatively€comfortable,€isolated,€and€safe€locations.€Comparable€facilities€opportunities€are€notÏafforded€to€defendants€and€their€witnesses.€Judge€Lopez€did€not€seek€to€ð ðdefeatðð€the€pressðð€rightÏto€cover€this€case.€What€she€did€was€to€seek€to€maintain€the€dignity€and€decorum€of€theÏcourthouse,€by€protecting€a€mentally€ill€and€vulnerable€defendant€and€his€mother€from€the€leering,Ïcircus„like€onslaught€that€was€generated€by€the€District€Attorneyððs€Office€unprofessional€effort€toÏturn€a€court€proceeding€concerning€a€¢transgendered£€person€into€a€freak€show.€€Judge€LopezÏdischarged€her€duty€to€maintain€dignity€and€decorum,€but€also€her€duty,€pursuant€to€Canon€ofÏJudicial€Conduct€3(B)(5),€to€ð ðnot...manifest€bias€or€prejudice,€including€but€not€limited€to€bias€orÏprejudice€based€upon...disability€[or]€sexual€orientation,€and€shall€not€permit€staff,€court€officialsÏand€others€subject€to€the€judgeððs€direction€and€control€to€do€so.ðð€The€victim€was€not€in€court.ÏGiven€that€the€victimððs€family€was€being€well€taken€care€of€by€the€District€Attorney€and€theÏnumerous€special€facilities€available€to€the€District€Attorney€with€which€to€do€so,€it€was€theÏjudgeððs€obligation€to€make€sufficient€accommodations€to€the€defendant€to€prevent€harm€to€himÏand€to€his€mother.€The€Commissionððs€perverse€charge€seeks€to€punish€Judge€Lopez€for€a€laudableÏperformance€of€her€sworn€duty€to€assure€equal€justice€under€the€law.ÌÌà  à14.€During€the€September€6,€2000,€hearing€in€which€the€guilty€pleas€were€tendered,€JudgeÏLopez€reminded€the€prosecutor€to€state€only€the€facts€that€pertain€to€the€indictments.€€At€thisÏstage€of€the€hearing,€the€sole€issue€was€whether€there€was€a€factual€basis€for€the€guilty€pleas,€notÏto€hear€sentencing„related€facts.€€When€Assistant€District€Attorney€David€Deakin€stated€factsÏwhich€were€correctly€determined€by€Judge€Lopez€to€be€sufficient€to€establish€that€a€factual€basisÏfor€guilty€pleas€to€all€of€the€charges,€she€interrupted€the€prosecutor,€thanked€him,€and€stated€sheÏdeemed€the€facts€stated€to€be€sufficient.€The€prosecutor€responded€that€he€wished€to€add€aÏrepresentation€concerning€an€out„of„court€statement€which€the€defendant€had€made.€Judge€LopezÏallowed€the€prosecutor€to€add€the€information€concerning€the€defendantððs€statement€even€thoughÏit€added€nothing€material€to€the€already€sufficient€factual€bases€for€the€guilty€pleas.€€ÌÌà  à15.€Judge€Lopez€asked€ADA€Deakin€to€rate€the€offense€on€a€one„to„ten€scale.€After€ADAÏDeakin€gave€his€response,€Judge€Lopez€told€him€that€she€considered€his€high€rating€of€the€offenseÏto€be€ð ðdisingenuous.ðð€In€so€doing,€Judge€Lopez€expressly€relied€upon€her€extensive€experience€asÏa€judge€who€was€familiar€with€many€cases€involving€sexual€assaults€upon€children.€The€bases€forÏJudge€Lopezððs€view€that€ADA€Deakinððs€rating€was€disingenuous€and€grandstanding€for€the€press,Ïincluded€at€least€the€following:€ÌÌà0  à(A)€Unlike€many€other€horrendous€and€all€too€common€cases,€the€adolescent€victim€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðalmost€certainly€not€pre„pubescent€and€was€believed€by€the€offender€to€be€fourteen€yearsÏold.€The€offense€did€not€involve€¢pedophilia£€which€poses€a€high€risk€of€recidivism€and€thereÏwas€no€evidence€that€Hortonððs€illness€created€a€risk€that€he€would€sexually€re„offendÏagainst€anyone;Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à(B)€the€offense€did€not€involve€obtaining€physical€access€to€the€victim€through€an€abuse€orÏbetrayal€of€a€family,€household€or€other€relationship€of€trust;€Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à(C)€the€adolescent€had€not€been€physically€and€repeatedly€brutalized€either€by€sexualÏpenetration€or€otherwise;Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à(D)€the€adolescent€had€suffered€no€physical€injury;Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à€(E)€according€to€the€òò¢unrebutted£óó€psychological€assessment,€the€offense€had€beenÐ ¬ü  Ðcommitted€by€a€person€who€suffered€from€a€mental€illness€that€is€not€associated€withÏcompulsive€recidivist€sexual€offenses€against€anyone,€including€pre„€or€post„pubescentÏchildren;€andÐ (#(# ÐÌà0  à€(F)€according€to€the€òò¢unrebutted£óó€assessment,€the€offenderððs€mental€illness€posed€aÐ H˜ Ðsubstantial€risk€of€either€self„inflicted€harm€or€harm€from€others,€or€both,€if€the€offenderÏwere€to€be€incarcerated.Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à(G)€Hortonððs€criminal€history€was€limited€to€misdemeanors€with€no€prior€sex€offenses,€orÏcriminal€involvement€with€children.Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à(H)€From€November€22,€1999,€through€the€date€of€sentencing,€September€6,€2000,Ô#†X™)XXX™)¢D#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)Ô€theÐ ¼  Ðprosecution€had€never€filed€a€motion€asserting€that€Horton€should€be€detained€without€bailÏbased€on€danger€to€the€community.Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à(I)€Horton€has€satisfactorily€complied€with€all€the€conditions€of€pre„trial€release,€includingÏa€curfew.€€Horton€was€a€high€school€drop„out€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€While€on€pre„¼trial€release€in€lieu€of€bail,€Horton€earned€a€GED€high€school€diploma€and€had€commencedÏcollege.Ð (#(# ÐÌÔ#†X™)XXX™)m#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)ÔIn€assessing€the€credibility€of€Mr.€Deakinððs€extraordinarily€high€rating€of€the€offense,€Judge€LopezÐ $X" Ðalso€had€in€mind,€and€was€justifiably€angered€by,€the€Commonwealthððs€attempt€to€exploitÏmanipulated,€circus„like€press€coverage€in€an€unprofessional€and€offensive€manner,€rather€than€Ïrely€upon€courtroom€advocacy€based€on€credible€evidence,€to€persuade€the€court€to€impose€aÏlengthy€prison€sentence.ÌÌà  à16.€Having€listened€to€the€prosecutorððs€presentation€and€after€she€expressed€her€view€thatÏthe€prosecutorððs€rating€was€disingenuous,€Judge€Lopez€stated€to€the€prosecutor€that€she€wished€toÏhear€from€defense€counsel.€The€prosecutor€attempted€to€speak€again€even€though€Judge€LopezÐ h+¸&* Ðhad€ordered€that€she€wanted€to€hear€from€defense€counsel.€(Judge€Lopez€had€already€given€theÏCommonwealth€and€the€defendant€full€and€fair€opportunity€to€be€heard€at€the€August€1,€2000€pleaÏconference;€thus,€the€Commonwealth€was€being€heard€at€the€September€6,€2000€hearing€to€beÏurging€Judge€Lopez€to€òòreconsider€a€decision€she€had€already€madeóó.)€€ADA€Deakin€continued€toÐ tÄ Ðattempt€to€thwart€Judge€Lopezððs€ruling€that€it€was€time€to€hear€from€defense€counsel.€TheÏprosecutor€nonetheless€objected€to€Judge€Lopezððs€statement€that€she€deemed€his€rating€of€theÏoffense€to€be€disingenuous.Ô#†X™)XXX™)Èo#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)Ô€In€Judge€Lopezððs€view,€ADA€Deakin€was€then€attempting€to€argueÐ 8 ˆ Ðwith€her€view€that€he€had€been€disingenuous.€€Judge€Lopez,€wanting€to€return€to€the€sentencingÏissue,€appropriately€raised€her€voice€in€ordering€the€prosecutor€to€be€seated€after€he€interruptedÏher.€Judge€Lopez€repeated€her€view€that€the€prosecutor€had€been€disingenuous€and€told€defenseÏcounsel€to€proceed,€because€the€prosecutor€had€previously€stated€that€he€had€completed€hisÏsentencing€presentation.€ÌÌà  à17.€At€the€conclusion€of€the€Commonwealthððs€statement€of€its€recommendation€that€aÏsentence€of€imprisonment€be€imposed,€Judge€Lopez€inquired€whether€the€Commonwealth€wasÏrequesting€whether€the€commitment€be€to€a€male€or€female€prison.€Judge€Lopez€put€the€questionÏas€a€way€of€pointing€to€the€hazards€and€difficulties€that€would€result€from€a€prison€sentence€to€aÏ¢transgendered£€person.€Judge€Lopez€denies€that€she€was,€nor€intended€to€be,€sarcastic€in€posingÏthis€question,€and€she€denies€that€her€tone€of€voice€ð"ð€which€is€recorded€and€hence€available€forÏall€to€hear€ð"ð€€was€sarcastic.€Her€question€to€Mr.€Deakin€was€a€serious€and€important€questionÏput€to€the€prosecutor€with€proper€decorum,€as€any€objective€listener€to€the€tape€would€have€toÏagree.€€In€fact,€when€questioned€concerning€the€likely€conditions€of€confinement€that€would€beÏimposed€if€Horton€were€imprisoned,€Mr.€Deakin€attempted€to€suggest€that€the€Hortonððs€illnessÏwould€not€cause€him€to€suffer€harsh€conditions€of€imprisonment€even€though,€at€the€pleaÏconference,€Ms.€¢Goldbach£€had€made€an€¢unrebutted£€representation€to€Judge€Lopez€that,€while€inÏheld€by€the€Suffolk€County€Sheriff€for€over€thirty€days,€Horton€had€been€confined€in€a€cell€23Ïhours€per€day€and€was€isolated€when€not€in€a€cell.ÌÌà  à18.€The€Commission€charges€that€Judge€Lopez€engaged€in€misconduct€by€requiring€thatÏMr.€Deakin,€rather€than€Ms.€Joseph,€read€the€victim€impact€statements.€The€court€has€inherentÏauthority€to€limit€advocacy€for€each€party€in€a€case€to€one€lawyer.€Where€more€than€one€counselÏappear€for€single€party€in€a€case,€judges€commonly€limit€advocacy€to€one€counsel€per€side€on€aÏparticular€issue,€or€in€questioning€each€witness.€Only€one€lawyer€spoke€for€the€defendant.ÏMoreover,€this€was€not€an€instance€in€which€any€advocacy€by€Mr.€Deakin€or€Ms.€Joseph€was€toÏbe€presented;€rather,€it€involved€the€reading€of€a€statement€written€by€a€victim.€Which€lawyerÏwould€read€a€statement€written€by€a€victim€was€of€no€consequence€or€significance.€It€was€theÏvictimððs€views€that€were€being€transmitted€ð"ð€and€properly€so€ð"ð€and€not€the€views€of€the€lawyer.ÌÌà  à19.€After€Judge€Lopez€directed€the€clerk€to€announce€the€probationary€sentence,€ADAÏDeakin€rose€and€asked€to€be€heard.€Believing€that€ADA€Deakin€was€attempting€to€be€heardÏfurther€in€opposition€to€the€sentence€which€she€had€already€directed€the€clerk€to€announce,€JudgeÏLopez€again€raised€her€voice€in€telling€ADA€Deakin€that€sheððd€heard€enough€and€he€would€not€beÏheard.€ADA€Deakin€then€informed€the€court€that€he€wished€only€to€be€heard€concerning€theÐ h+¸&* Ðconditions€of€electronic€monitoring.€Upon€hearing€this,€Judge€Lopez€immediately€changed€herÏruling€and€allowed€ADA€Deakin€to€be€heard€in€full,€thus€demonstrating€that€she€was€open„mindedÏin€hearing€further€relevant€argument€on€a€matter€not€already€decided.€ÌÌà  à20.€The€District€Attorneyððs€Office€never€filed€a€motion€requesting€Judge€Lopez€to€recuseÏherself€on€any€grounds,€including€a€claim€that€she€had€exhibited,€or€that€her€actions€were€affectedÏby,€bias.Ô#†X™)XXX™)Yu#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)ÔÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  à21.€€After€the€sentencing,€Judge€Lopez€consulted€with€several€of€her€colleagues,€includingÏSuperior€Court€Chief€Justice€Suzanne€¢DelVecchio£,€concerning€statements€about€the€òòHortonóó€caseÐ ü L  Ðthat€appeared€in€the€media.€She€also€consulted€with€the€Supreme€Judicial€Courtððs€PublicÏInformation€Officer.€Initially,€Chief€Justice€¢DelVecchio£€and€others€stated€that€Judge€Lopez€shouldÏneither€issue€a€formal€opinion€explaining€the€sentence,€nor€respond€publicly.€Judge€Lopez€believedÏthat€she€should€defer€to€the€Chief€Justice€and€the€court€systemððs€public€information€officer€withÏrespect€to€any€publicized€response€to€the€reactions€of€the€media€and€the€public€concerning€theÏòòHortonóó€case.€€For€this€reason,€she€followed€their€directions.€However,€shortly€thereafter,€the€ChiefÐ „Ô  ÐJustice€¢DelVecchio£€and€the€Public€Information€Officer€adopted€the€opposite€view€with€respect€toÏthe€issuance€of€a€press€release.€The€Public€Information€Officer€composed,€and€the€Chief€JusticeÏedited,€a€statement€to€be€released€in€Judge€Lopezððs€name€by€the€Supreme€Judicial€Courtððs€PublicÏInformation€Office.€The€first€sentence€of€the€release€stated€that€judges€are€prohibited€from€makingÏpublic€comment€about€a€pending€or€impending€case€and€then€proceeded€to€defend€the€fairness€ofÏthe€sentence€in€the€òòHortonóó€case.€After€the€statement€composed€by€the€Chief€Justice€and€the€PublicÐ  \ ÐInformation€Officer€was€read€to€Judge€Lopez€during€a€telephone€call€and€she€did€not€object€to€itsÏcontents,€the€statement€was€issued€by€the€Supreme€Judicial€Courtððs€Public€Information€Office.ÌÌà  à22.€The€Commission€alleges€that€the€òòHortonóó€case€was€pending€at€the€time€that€the€releaseÐ ¼  Ðwas€issued€by€the€Supreme€Judicial€Courtððs€Public€Information€Office,€and€indeed€that€it€remainsÏpending.€Based€on€this€groundless€premise,€the€Commission€charges,€among€other€things,€thatÏJudge€Lopez€failed€to€abstain€from€public€comment€about€a€pending€case,€engaged€in€prohibitedÏòòex€parteóó€contacts,€and€failed€to€uphold€the€impartiality€and€integrity€of€the€courts.€€Yet€JudgeÐ l¼ ÐLopez€properly€relied€upon€Chief€Justice€¢DelVecchio£ððs€accurate€view€that,€as€of€theÏpronouncement€of€the€sentence,€the€òòHortonóó€case€ceased€to€be€a€pending€or€impending€case.Ð D!” ÐAccording€to€the€evidence€before€the€Commission,€the€press€release€would€not€have€issued€at€allÏbut€for€Chief€Justice€¢DelVecchio£ððs€decision€to€issue€it.€ÌÌà  à23.€The€Commission€alleges€three€grounds€„„€all€faulty€„„€to€support€its€claim€that€theÏòòHortonóó€case€remained€and,€indeed,€remains€pending€or€impending:€(a)€Judge€Lopez€retainedÐ à%0!$ Ðjurisdiction€to€supervise€the€administration€of€the€probationary€sentence;€(b)€some€of€JudgeÏLopezððs€statements,€including€the€statement€composed€by€the€Superior€Courtððs€Chief€Justice€andÏissued€by€the€Supreme€Judicial€Courtððs€Public€Information€Office,€occurred€during€a€period€whenÏeither€Horton€or€the€Commonwealth€theoretically€could€appeal;€and€(c)€Horton€could€file€aÏmotion€for€a€new€trial.ÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà  à24.€€The€Commissionððs€grounds€are€patently€erroneous:€Ô#†X™)XXX™)­ƒ#Ô(a)€Judge€Lopezððs€retention€ofÐ ° Ðjurisdiction€was€solely€to€administer€the€sentence.€During€the€pending€proceeding,€Judge€LopezÏembodied€the€tribunal€to€resolve€disputed€matters€between€the€Commonwealth€and€Horton.€WhenÏthe€Court€administers€the€sentence€it€is€no€longer€performing€as€the€dispute„resolving€tribunal.ÏThe€exercise€of€jurisdiction€to€administer€a€sentence€does€not€pertain€to€a€pending€or€impendingÏproceeding€but€solely€to€supervising€the€imposition€of€punishment€ordered€at€the€conclusion€of€theÏadversarial€proceeding.€(b)€No€appeal€was€available€to€either€party.€The€Commonwealth€had€noÏgood€faith€basis€to€contend€that€the€sentence€was€unlawful.€There€is€no€other€basis€for€theÏCommonwealth€to€appeal.€€Horton€agreed€not€to€appeal€when€he€agreed€to€plead€guilty€asÏcharged,€provided€that€the€Court€would€impose€the€probation€sentence€decided€upon€on€AugustÏ1,€2000.€€(c)€A€motion€for€a€new€trial€filed€after€a€sentencing€based€upon€guilty€pleas€is,€byÏdefinition,€an€application€to€re„open€an€already„closed€case.€The€case€thus€was€closed,€notÏpending€or€impending.ÌÌà  à25.€Judge€Lopez€denies€that€she€misled€anyone,€including€the€Supreme€Judicial€CourtððsÏPublic€Information€Officer,€concerning€material€information.€The€release€issued€by€that€office€inÏJudge€Lopezðð€name€stated,€in€part,€that€ð ðthere€were€certain€facts€before€me,€known€by€theÏprosecutor€and€the€defense€attorney,€that€were€part€of€the€plea€conference€and€cannot€be€revealedÏby€me,€but€which€would€undoubtedly€change€the€characterization€of€this€case€as€currentlyÏreported€by€some€media€outlets.ðð€Judge€Lopez€was€òòaccuratelyóó€referring€to€facts€stated€in€theÐ 4„ Тunrebutted£€psychological€report€and€assessment€as€well€as€representations€of€counsel,€during€theÏplea€conference€concerning€other€evidence,€which€she€did€not€believe€it€appropriate€to€discussÏpublicly.€Judge€Lopez€believed€then,€and€believes€now,€that€if€an€objective€observer€were€toÏreview€all€of€the€information€that€was€before€her€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€that€observer€would€beÏless€inclined€to€take€issue€with€her€judgment€in€imposing€a€probationary€sentence€with€strictÏprobationary€conditions.ÌÌà  à26.€On€or€about€November€1,€2000,€Judge€Lopez€received€a€copy€of€a€typewrittenÏcomplaint€from€an€individual€whose€street€address€was€in€Billerica.€The€complaint€had€beenÏreceived€by€the€Commission,€and€a€copy€had€been€provided€to€Judge€Lopez€by€the€Commission.ÏJudge€Lopez€earlier€had€been€victimized€by€numerous€bogus€ð ðcomplaintsðð€filed€against€her€byÏpersons€aggrieved€by€her€decisions€in€litigation€between€members€of€the€¢Demoulas£€family.€TheÏ¢Demoulas£€family€business€had€a€substantial€presence€in€Billerica€and€environs.€Based€on€these€andÏother€circumstances,€Judge€Lopez€had€reason€to€strongly€suspect€that€the€copy€of€the€complaintÏthat€the€Commission€received€and€that€she€in€turn€received€from€the€Commission€on€or€aboutÏNovember€1,€2000,€was€a€bogus€complaint.€€Judge€Lopez€used€her€home€telephone€to€determineÏwhether€a€person€answering€her€call€would€identify€herself€as€the€complainant.€Because€theÏòòHortonóó€case€was€no€longer€pending,€no€misconduct€would€have€occurred€even€if€Judge€Lopez€hadÐ Ì&"% Ðengaged€the€complainant€in€conversation€by€discussing€the€complaintððs€merits.€Instead,€when€theÏindividual€who€answered€the€phone€identified€herself€with€the€complainantððs€name,€Judge€LopezÏdid€not€engage€in€an€extended€dialogue€but€simply€terminated€the€call,€satisfied€that€this€complaintÏwas€not€bogus€and€was€not€part€of€a€¢Demoulas£„like€pattern.€Under€the€circumstances,€JudgeÏLopez€did€not€engage€in€misconduct€by€making€the€call€solely€to€verify€that€the€complainant€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðnot€a€fictitious€person.ÌÌà  à27.€€While€Judge€Lopez€firmly€believes€that€during€the€course€of€this€difficult€criminalÏcase,€Commonwealth€vs.€Horton,€she€conducted€herself€in€a€lawful,€responsible€and€ethicalÏ(although€not€always€perfect,€especially€when€she€raised€her€voice€and€began€to€lose€her€temper)Ïmanner,€she€admits€that€she€made€one€serious€error€such€that,€if€she€could€re„write€history,€sheÏwould€act€differently.€Given€the€nature€of€the€case€and€the€factors€„„€some€of€them€invisible€toÏthose€who€observed€the€open€court€hearings€but€had€no€idea€what€had€preceded€those€hearings€„„Ïthat€went€into€Judge€Lopez'€controversial€sentencing€decision,€and€in€view€of€the€fact€that€theÏDistrict€Attorney's€office€took€the€step€of€¢sensationalizing£€the€case€in€its€ill„considered€pressÏrelease€focusing€on€the€"¢transgendered£"€condition€of€the€defendant,€the€judge€should€have€issued€aÏwritten€opinion€stating€the€factors€that€determined€the€Horton€sentence.€While€this€was€not€aÏviolation€of€any€applicable€statute,€rule€or€code,€it€reflected€unrealistic€and€poor€judgment.€TheÏpublic,€the€judge€now€realizes,€had€and€has€a€right€to€know€why€a€judge€imposes€a€sentence€so€atÏodds€with€the€District€Attorney's€recommendation€and€with€the€views€of€many€citizens,€legislators,Ïand€even€some€other€judges.€A€judge€owes€the€public€more€than€this,€and€Judge€Lopez€shouldÏhave€followed€her€better€instincts€and€written€an€explanatory€opinion,€rather€than€follow€theÏcontrary€advice€she€was€receiving€from€some€of€her€colleagues€who€believed€that€the€less€said,€theÏbetter.€In€a€democracy,€the€rule„of„thumb€should€be€that€the€more€said,€the€better.€€An€importantÏlesson€has€been€learned€by€this€experience€that€has€been€so€painful€for€so€many.ÌÔ‡X™)XXX™)ÔÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà@ôô ìàò òRESPONSES€TO€CHARGESó óˆÐ  \ ÐÌÝ‚)NÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚)Ní¦ÝÚƒÚIÚ  Ú.à0  àÝ  ÝJudge€Lopez€denies€the€premise€of€the€charge€that€the€Horton€case€was€pending€afterÐ ä4 Ðpronouncement€of€the€sentence€by€incorporating€by€reference€ðððð€22„24€of€the€CaseÏHistory,€òòsupra,óó€and€denies€that€she€engaged€in€improper€òòex€parteóó€contacts€and€violatedÐ ¼  ÐCanons€1,€2,€2(A),3,€and€3(A)(4).€€Further€answering,€Judge€Lopez€denies€that€sheÏexpressed€anger€to€William€Leahy€and€that€she€encouraged€him€and€¢CPCS£€to€come€to€herÏdefense.Ô#†X™)XXX™)Z¦#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)Ô݃)Ní¦§ÝۀیЀÐ(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚)NÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚)NÒ©ÝÚƒÚIIÚ  Ú.à0  àÝ  ÝJudge€Lopez€denies€that€she€exhibited€bias€in€the€discharge€of€her€duties€and€that€sheÐ X ¨ Ðviolated€Canons€1,€2(A),€2(B),€3,€3(A)(1),€3(B)(5).€€Further€answering,€Judge€LopezÏincorporates€by€reference€ðððð€1„20,€22„24€of€the€Case€History,€òò¢supraóó,and£€that€judges€mayÐ 0"€  Ðproperly€rely€upon€opinions€formed€from€their€experience,€particularly€when€these€viewsÏare€confirmed€by€an€¢unrebutted£€expert€opinion.€Ýƒ)NÒ©í©ÝۀیР(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚)NÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚)NI¬ÝÚƒÚIIIÚ  Ú.à0  àÝ  ÝJudge€Lopez€denies€that€she€used€the€court€system€in€disregard€of€her€obligation€to€upholdÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€impartiality€and€integrity€of€the€judiciary€and€that€she€violated€Canons€1,€2,€2(A),Ï3(A)(1),€and€3(A)(6).€Further€answering,€Judge€Lopez€incorporates€by€reference€ðððð€1„9,Ï21„22€and€25.Ô#†X™)XXX™)V©#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)Ô݃)NI¬d¬ÝۀیФ(ô#'(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚)NÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚)N{®ÝÚƒÚIVÚ  Ú.à0  àÝ  ÝJudge€Lopez€denies€that€she€used€the€court€system€in€disregard€of€her€obligation€to€upholdÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€impartiality€and€integrity€of€the€court€system€and€that€she€violated€Canons€1,€2,€2(A),Ð h+¸&* Ð3,€3(A)(6).€Further€answering,€Judge€Lopez€incorporates€by€reference€€ðððð€21„25€of€theÏCase€History,€òòsupraóó,€and€does€not€recall€speaking€with€òòBoston€Heraldóó€reporter,€JoseÐ œì ÐMartinez,€and€denies€making€the€statements€attributed€to€her€by€Jose€Martinez.݃)N{®–®ÝۀیР(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚)NÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚)N-±ÝÚƒÚVÚ  Ú.à0  àÝ  ÝJudge€Lopez€denies€that€she€failed€to€be€patient,€courteous€and€dignified,€and€failed€toÐ `° Ðaccord€every€person€or€litigant€a€full€right€to€be€heard€and€that€she€violated€Canons€1,€2,Ï2(A),€3(A)(3),€3(A)(4),€3(B)(5).€Further€answering,€incorporates€by€reference€ðððð€1„20€ofÏthe€Case€History,€òòsupra.óó€Ýƒ)N-±H±ÝÛ€ÛŒÐ$ t(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚)NÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚)N0³ÝÚƒÚVIÚ  Ú.à0  àÝ  ÝJudge€Lopez€denies€that€she€has€exhibited€a€pattern€of€abuse€of€her€office,€bias€andÐ ü L  Ðindiscretion€and€that€she€violated€Canons€1,€2,€2(A),€and€3.€Further€answering,€JudgeÏincorporates€by€reference€to€the€Case€History,€òòsupra.óó݃)N0³K³ÝÛ€ÛŒÐÔ$ (#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà@šš ìàò òSUMMARY€OF€VIOLATIONSó óˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àJudge€Lopez€incorporates€by€reference€her€Case€History€and€Responses€to€Charges.ÌÌÔ#†X™)XXX™)ÿ­#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)Ôà@ ìàò òAFFIRMATIVE€DEFENSESó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌI.€€€€€€The€charges€violate€¢G.L.£€c.¢211C£,€ðð€2(4)€in€that€they€constitute€actions€against€Judge€Lopez€Ïin€the€absence€of€fraud,€corrupt€motive,€bad€faith€or€a€clear€indication€that€her€conduct€violatedÏthe€code€of€judicial€conduct€for€making€findings€of€fact,€reaching€legal€conclusions,€and€applyingÏthe€law€as€she€understood€it,€in€at€least€the€following€respects:ÌÌà0  à(1)€granting€a€continuance;€(2)€directives€concerning€courthouse€security€arrangements;Ï(3)€making€an€order€concerning€the€use€of€cameras€in€the€courtroom;€(4)€forming€opinionsÏand€finding€that€ADA€¢Leora£€Joseph€and€David€Deakin€made€statements€that€lacked€candorÏtoward€the€tribunal€and€were€disingenuous;€(5)€admonishing€ADA€Joseph€for€her€lack€ofÏcandor€and€for€poor€professionalism€in€attempting€to€use€press€coverage€rather€thanÏpersuasive€advocacy€based€on€credible€evidence;€€(6)€the€order€directing€ADA€Deakin€toÏcease€speaking€and€to€be€seated;€(7)€the€order€that€ADA€Deakin€read€the€victim€impactÏstatement;€(8)€allowing€a€press€release€to€be€issued€by€the€Supreme€Judicial€Court€PublicÏInformation€Office€upon€the€advice€of€the€Chief€Justice€of€the€Superior€Court€Department;Ï(9)€speaking€with€various€persons€about€the€òòHortonóó€case€after€the€sentence€had€beenÐ #l! Ðimposed;€and,€(10)€placing€a€telephone€call€to€determine€whether€the€signatory€to€aÏcomplaint€against€her€actually€existed.€Ð (#(# ÐÌII.€€€€The€charges€are€a€product€of€a€Commission€proceedings€that€were€commenced€and€pursuedÏwithout€complying€with€¢G.L.£€c.€¢211C£,€ðððð€1€and€2.ÌÌà  àWHEREFORE,€the€charges€should€be€dismissed.ÌÌò òTHE€FOREGOING€RESPONSE€TO€THE€CHARGES€IS€FILED€UNDER€PROTEST.€Ð h+¸&* ÐTHE€COMMISSION€DENIED€JUDGE€LOPEZððS€TIMELY€REQUEST€THAT€SHE€BEÏGRANTED€AN€EXTENSION€OF€TIME€TO€RESPOND,€BECAUSE€HER€COUNSEL,ÏRICHARD€M.€EGBERT,€ESQUIRE,€IS€CURRENTLY€ENGAGED€IN€A€JURY€TRIAL.€ÏTHE€DENIAL€OF€THE€EXTENSION€OF€TIME€EFFECTIVELY€DEPRIVED€JUDGEÏLOPEZ€OF€HER€RIGHT€TO€COUNSEL€OF€HER€CHOICE€GUARANTEED€TO€HERÏBY€¢G.L.£€c.€¢211C£,€ðð€5(8).ó ó€€ò òJUDGE€LOPEZ€RESERVES€HER€RIGHT€TO€AMEND€HERÐ L œ ÐRESPONSE€TO€THE€CHARGES.ó óÔ#†X™)XXX™)¬µ#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)ÔÐ < Œ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Respectfully€submitted,ÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Richard€M.€EgbertÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€99€Summer€StreetÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Boston,€MA€02110Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€617/737„8222ÌÌDated:€May€6,€2002ÌÌOf€counsel€to€Richard€M.€Egbert:ÌÌHarvey€A.€¢Silverglate£ÌAndrew€GoodÌPhilip€G.€¢Cormier£Ì¢Silverglate£€&€GoodÌ83€Atlantic€AvenueÌBoston,€MA€02110Ì617/523„5933ÌÌÌœñ´ ñòòñ´ ññµ ñÔ.Nƒ >G:\CLIENTS\Lopez\answer FNL.wpdNÔG:\CLIENTS\Lopez\answer€FNL.wpdÔ/  Ôñµ ññ´ ñóóñ´ ñ›Ð pÀ ÐÔ#†X™)XXX™)²¾#ÔÔ‡X™)XXX™)ÔÌÌÌÌà  àÌÌÌà  àÌ€€ñ³ ñÌÌà  à€ñ³ ñ€ÌÌà  àÌÌà  à€ÌÐ ,,|'+ Ðà0  àÐ (#(# ÐÌÌÌà  à€Ô#†X™)XXX™)áÁ#Ôœ