StateofMinnesota

BEFORETHEBOARDONJUDICIALSTANDARDS
InquiryintotheConductofTheHonorableJackS.Nordby BJSFileNo.2009124

FORMALSTATEMENTOFCOMPLAINT
TheBoardonJudicialStandards(Board),havingdeterminedthatsufficientcauseexiststo proceedintheabovereferencedmatterpursuanttotheRulesoftheBoardonJudicialStandards (R.Bd.J.Stds.),Rule6(f),andhavingreceivedatimelydemandforaformalhearing,herebymakesthe followingFormalStatementofComplaintagainsttheHonorableJackS.Nordby.ThisComplaintismade andservedunderR.Bd.J.Stds.,Rule8(a)1and2. NoticeisherebygiventhatR.Bd.J.Stds.,Rule8(a)(3)requiresyourwrittenresponsetothis Complaintwithintwenty(20)daysofthedateofservice. FACTUALBACKGROUND 1. JudgeJackS.NordbyhasservedasadistrictjudgeintheFourthJudicialDistrictsince 1995.HiscurrenttermexpiresinJanuary2015. 2. JudgeNordbywasscheduledtosentencedefendantKrisHahnonDecember16,2009 followingHahnsconvictionforfirstdegreecriminalsexualconductagainstachild.Aprosecutor, defenseattorney,Hahn,Hahnsvictimandthevictimsmotherallappearedincourtthatdayfor sentencing. 3. AlthoughJudgeNordbyeventuallycontinuedthesentencingdate,hetookvictimimpact testimonyfromMr.Hahnsvictimandthevictimsmother. 4. Immediatelyafterthevictimimpacttestimony,JudgeNordbytoldthepartiesthathe neededmoretimetoresearchwhetherthesentenceonMr.Hahnsstatecourtconvictionshouldrun consecutivetoafederalcourtsentenceMr.Hahnwascurrentlyserving. 5. JudgeNordbythenannouncedtothepartiesandspectatorsthathewantedtoraise anotherissueonmyown,here,thatIvegivensomeattentionto.

 6. JudgeNordbynotedthatMr.Hahnhadmadeallegationsthattheprosecutor,hisown attorneys,thevictimandJudgeNordbywereallinvolvedinaconspiracytodepriveHahnofhis constitutionalrights.JudgeNordbyfurthersaid:Sincewelastdealtwiththisissue,ithasoccurredto methatthereisonephenomenonthatcouldlendsomeweighttoMr.Hahnsconcerns,aphenomenon ofwhichheandhiscounselmaynotbeaware. 7. JudgeNordbythenreadalengthystatementdirectedagainstWATCH,acourt monitoringorganization.Thestatementconsumed11pagesofcourttranscript,andisattachedtothis Complaintandincorporatedbyreference. 8. Inthisstatement,JudgeNordbysaidthatmembersofWATCHhadbeenpresentat timesthroughouttheHahncourtproceedings,andthatWATCHmonitorscarriedredclipboards. 9. Inregardtotheredclipboards,JudgeNordbystated: a. Thebearersoftheclipboardswereacheeringsectionforthevictimandthe

prosecution;

b.

Theredclipboardswereanotverysubtlethreattothejudge; Theredclipboardswerearguablyexpartecommunicationstojudgesabout

c. pendingcases;

d. Theredclipboardsrepresentstronglypartisancommunicationsofa threateningnaturetojudges; e. Becauseofthepresenceoftheredclipboards,thedefendantwillhavea plausibleargumentthattheycreateeitheranactuallybiasedcourt,orapalpableappearanceofbias; f. Whenaredclipboardappears,ajudgeshouldnotifythedefendantthatan advocateoftheaccuserhassaidtothejudgeDoitourwayorwellgetyou; g. Redclipboardsarelikegangsignsandinsigniausedtoinfluenceandintimidate witnesses(Wehaveencounteredinrecentyearsanoccasionalproblemwithgangmembersallegedly usinggangsignsandinsigniatoinfluenceorintimidatewitnesses.Thedynamicofthephenomenonis essentiallythesame);and judges. h. Itisunlikelyandunprovablethatredclipboardshavenoeffectatallon

10. JudgeNordbynotedthatalthoughWATCHmonitorswerepresentinthecourtroom duringthecourseofHahnstrial,themonitorsdidntsayanythingtoJudgeNordby,theydidnt communicatewithJudgeNordby,andtheydidntmisbehaveinanywayinthecourtroom.

 11. JudgeNordbyfailedtoidentifyanyspecificwayinwhichWATCHmonitorsthreatened him,attemptedtoinfluencehim,orattemptedtogethimintheHahnproceedings,otherthanby watchingtheproceedingsandcarryingredclipboards. 12. include: JudgeNordbyleviedseveralaccusationsagainstWATCHduringhisstatement.They

a. b.

WATCHhasasexistagenda; JudgeNordbyknowsofnojudgeswhohavegenuinerespectoresteemfor

WATCH;

c. JudgeNordbys; d.

WATCHhasimproperlyattemptedtochangejudgesassignments,including

WATCHhasanintendednefariousinfluenceonthejusticesystem;and

e. WATCHisamixtureofselfrighteousness,officiousness,arrogance, humorlessness,andignorance 13. Attheconclusionofhisstatement,JudgeNordbydistributedacopyofhisprepared remarks,alongwitha24pageprintoutoflegalresearchcitationswhichhetoldthosepresentinthe courtroomaddressedtheissueofdemonstrativeconductincourt.Thedocumentwascompiledusing WestLaw,asubscriptionbasedcomputerizedlegalresearchservice,andwasprintedtwodaysearlier, onDecember14,2009. 14. Thedefendant,KrisHahn,askedJudgeNordbyforacopyofJudgeNordbysstatement alongwithacopyoftheWestLawprintout.JudgeNordbygavebothtoHahn. 15. Byhisremarksincourt,andbyprovidingacopyofhisstatementandlegalresearchto Hahn,JudgeNordbyineffectactedasanadvocateforHahnandsuggestedmotionstrategytohim. 16. HahnssentencingwascontinuedtoFebruary8,2010.

17. PriortoHahnscontinuedsentencing,Hahnfiledtwoprosemotions.Onewasamotion todismissforprosecutorialmisconduct,andthesecondwasamotiontoconveneagrandjuryto investigateWATCH.BothmotionswerepredicatedonthelengthystatementJudgeNordbyreadin courtonDecember16,2009. 18. JudgeNordbyspentasubstantialamountoftimeincourtonFebruary8discussing Hahnsmotions,beforedismissinghismotiontodismissforprosecutorialmisconduct,andreferring HahnsmotiontoconveneagrandjurytootherFourthJudicialDistrictjudges. 19. DuringHahnssentencinghearingonFebruary8,2010,JudgeNordbynotedthatWATCH hadfiledacomplaintwiththeBoardonJudicialStandardsfollowingtheDecember16,2009hearingin

 theHahncase.AttheFebruary8,2010hearing,JudgeNordbycontinuedtocriticizeWATCH.Judge Nordbystatedthat: a. HehadabsolutelynofearthatwhatevertheBoardonJudicialStandardsmay dowiththecomplaintWATCHhasfiledagainstmethattheyllremovemefromoffice.Theywillnotdo so; b. ItwasnotthefirsttimeWATCHhasattackedmepublicly.Theyveattackedme inthenewspaperandintheirnewsletterand,forallIknow,theywerepreparedtocampaignagainst me;and c. WATCHhasaffecteddozens,perhapshundredsofcases,atleastpotentially.

20. AlthoughJudgeNordbywasawareofWATCHspresenceinthecourtroomduringthe Hahntrial,hefailedtobringthistotheattentionofthepartiesuntilsentencing,whentheopportunity forapartytorequestcorrectiveactionhadpassed. 21. WATCHwasnotapartytotheHahnprosecution,andJudgeNordbydidnotgiveWATCH anopportunitytobeheardbeforeheleviedhisfindingsagainstWATCHonbothDecember16,2009 andFebruary8,2010. 22. Canon1oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductrequiresjudgestoupholdand promotetheindependence,integrity,andimpartialityofthejudiciary,andtoavoidimproprietyandthe appearanceofimpropriety. 23. Rule1.1oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductprovidesthatajudgeshallcomply withthelaw,includingtheCodeofJudicialConduct. 24. Rule1.2oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductprovidesthatajudgeshallactatall timesinamannerthatpromotespublicconfidenceintheindependence,integrityandimpartialityof thejudiciary,andshallavoidimproprietyandtheappearanceofimpropriety. 25. Rule1.3oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductprovidesthatajudgeshallnotabuse theprestigeofjudicialofficetoadvancethepersonaloreconomicinterestsofthejudgeorothers,or allowotherstodoso. 26. Canon2oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductrequiresjudgestoperformthe dutiesofjudicialofficeimpartially,competentlyanddiligently. 27. Rule2.1oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductprovidesthatthedutiesofjudicial office,asprescribedbylaw,shalltakeprecedenceoverallofajudgespersonalandextrajudicial activities. 28. Rule2.3oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductrequiresjudgestoperformthe dutiesofjudicialofficewithoutbiasorprejudice,andtoavoid,bywordsorconduct,manifestingbiasor prejudiceintheperformanceofthedutiesofjudicialoffice.

 29. Rule2.5oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductrequiresjudgestoperformjudicial andadministrativedutiescompetentlyanddiligently. 30. Rule2.8oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductprovidesthatajudgeshall;(1) requireorderanddecoruminproceedingsbeforethecourt,and(2)bepatient,dignifiedandcourteous tolitigants,jurors,witnesses,lawyers,courtstaff,courtofficials,andotherswithwhomthejudgedeals inanofficialcapacity. 31. Canon3oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductprovidesthatajudgeshallconduct thejudgespersonalandextrajudicialactivitiestominimizetheriskofconflictwiththeobligationsof judicialoffice. 32. Rule3.1(E)oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductprovidesthatajudgemayengage inextrajudicialactivities,exceptasprohibitedbylawortheCode;however,whenengagingin extrajudicialactivitiesajudgeshallnotmakeuseofcourtpremises,staff,stationery,equipment,or otherresources,exceptforincidentaluseofactivitiesthatconcernthelaw,thelegalsystem,orthe administrationofjustice,orunlesssuchadditionaluseispermittedbylaworJudicialBranchpolicy. 33. Rule4oftheBoardonJudicialStandardsprovidesasgroundsfordisciplineorother action:(5)Conductprejudicialtotheadministrationofjusticethatbringsthejudicialofficeinto disrepute..and(6)ConductthatconstitutesaviolationoftheCodeofJudicialConductorProfessional Responsibility.

SPECIFICATIONOFCHARGES
34. JudgeNordbyviolatedCanons1.2and3andRules1.1,1.2,1.3,2.1,2.3,2.52.8,3.1(E) and4oftheMinnesotaCodeofJudicialConductonDecember16,2009instatementshepreparedand madeduringcourtproceedingsinStatev.HahnasspecifiedinParagraphs5through14above. __________________________________________ DavidS.Paull,ExecutiveSecretary 2025CentrePointeBlvd.,Ste.180 MendotaHeights,MN55120 THEMINNESOTABOARDONJUDICIALSTANDARDS