State Supreme Court backs Estelle suspension

ANCHORAGE — The Alaska Supreme Court recommended Friday 3-0 Palmer District Court Judge William Estelle be suspended.

The decision “In re William Estelle,” agrees with recommendations originally made by the Alaska Commission of Judicial Conduct officially issued May 1, though the three justices that decided the case disagreed on how long the suspension should last. The original 45-day suspension was upheld.

The case went before justices Daniel Winfree, Craig Stowers, and Peter Maassen. Chief Justice Dana Fabe and Justice Joel Bolger did not participate in the decision.

The decision began with a review of the facts of the case, during which the justices considered the facts of the case as if it had not be previously decided.

“We conclude from our review of the commission’s findings and recommendation that Judge Estelle’s misconduct has been established by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in light of his answer admitting the charged allegations,” the decision reads in part. “We thus accept the Commission’s recommendations.”

The Commission originally found that Estelle signed 16 inaccurate pay affidavits showing he had no matters “ripe for decision” a legal term meaning no decisions had been delayed more than six months. Signed correctly, the affidavits would have provided Estelle with a portion of his pay. Because he signed the affidavits incorrectly, the commission ruled, Estelle should not have received that pay.

The original ruling found Estelle signed the pay affidavits “recklessly,” which, in legal terms, puts him somewhere between the standards “knowingly,” and “negligently.”

The most damage Estelle’s actions could caused was to public confidence in the administration of justice, according to that decision. No party in any of the three cases that had ripe decisions outstanding received actual harm, the commission ruled.

“Because the commission does not find by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Estelle intentionally falsified his pay affidavits and because there are mitigating factors, a reduction from the baseline suspension of six months is appropriate,” judicial conduct chairperson Keith Levy wrote.

Winfree wrote a partial dissent saying Estelle should have received a stiffer sentence than the 45-day suspension the court and commission were recommending.

“The misconduct here warrants a suspension of at least three, and probably four months,” he said.

A 2009 decision “In re Cummings,” referring to Bethel Judge Dennis Cummings, suspended for 90 days July 2009 for passing a note to a witness while presiding over a criminal trial. Cummings should have been suspended for six months, not three, meaning the baseline judgment against Estelle — which the commission used to determine the length of Estelle’s sentence — should be higher, Winfree wrote.

The other justices agreed with Winifree in principal, but said they had an insufficient number of justices to rewrite precedent.

“We think Justice Winfree’s point is valid, but conclude the case before us today is not an appropriate case to address this important issue because only three justices are sitting on the Estelle matter,” a footnote to the decision reads.

However, justices should consider the baseline question at some point in the future, the footnote continues.

A separate body, the Alaska Judicial Council, has also recommended voters remove Estelle from the bench in a judicial retention vote set for the November elections.

Contact Brian O’Connor at 352-2269 or brian.oconnor@frontiersman.com