Judge reprimanded by conduct board
Complaint: Made aggressive comments against opponent’s supporters
KING OF PRUSSIA >> A district judge accused of making aggressive statements toward acquaintances he discovered were supporting his opponent in a 2015 election has been reprimanded by the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline.
Judge William I. Maruszczak, who has served as a district judge in Montgomery County for 22 years, “is to serve a one year period on probation commencing immediately,” according to an order and opinion filed Oct. 4.
The order and opinion stated, “As a condition of probation Respondent Maruszczak is to submit to a comprehensive psychological assessment by a licensed psychologist designed to assess impulse control and anger-related issues including treatment recommendations, if any. Completion of treatment, if recommended, is a condition of probation.”
The opinion stems from a complaint filed in February 2018 alleging that Maruszczak acted improperly during a 2015 campaign for reelection.
“In that opinion we found Respondent Maruszczak committed violations by his conduct in loudly and publicly berating former supporters who had changed their support to his election opponent,” read the Oct. 4 filing.
In the complaint, it is alleged that Maruszczak became aware that long-time friends of his had been working for his opponent during a 2015 primary election. In one instance, the complaint states, he traveled to a polling place in Conshohocken to speak with the individual. During their interaction, it is alleged that he raised his voice at her and later left a voicemail for her husband that stated in part, “She started this. I’m going to finish it.”
In his responses to the complaint, Maruszczak denied yelling at her but did state that he raised his voice as a result of being “hurt and surprised” by her support of his opponent.
Additionally, Maruszczak admitted to leaving a voicemail the day after the election but added in an explanation: “The telephone call the day after the election was the result of a man who was very hurt and felt betrayed and in his moment of transient anger said something stupid.”
The complaint states that Maruszczak also traveled to another polling location on the primary election day to speak with another individual about support for his opponent. The complaint states that Maruszczak yelled at the individual and accused him of working for his opponent and stealing Maruszczak’s yard signs. In his response, Maruszczak claimed he did not yell at the individual but may have raised his voice given the noise level in the polling place.
In a third incident cited in the complaint, the board writes that Maruszczak is accused of confronting yet another individual who was canvassing his neighborhood on behalf of his opponent prior to the election in 2015.
The complaint states that Maruszczak expressed his disbelief that she would support his opponent and allegedly alluded to the idea that if something bad were to happen to her in the future she would know why. Maruszczak denied confronting her, explaining that he spoke with her as she was outside his home and denied ever threatening her in any way in his documented responses to the complaint.
“Respondent Maruszczak’s misconduct is obviously improper and violative of the ethical standards required of judicial officers. This Court is aware that emotions can run high during an election campaign but that does not excuse this misconduct,” the board wrote in their Oct. 4 filing.
In their discussion of the factors of the case, the board wrote: “Respondent Maruszczak’s misconduct arose out of his surprise and anger at finding former political supporters instead backing his electoral opponents. Such conduct, while clearly wrong, is more understandable when it occurs in the course of a hard-fought election rather than in the normal course of judicial proceedings. Such misconduct warrants a sanction nonetheless.”
The Court of Judicial Discipline has jurisdiction over all judicial officers in Pennsylvania and must hear and decide formal charges which are filed against a judicial officer.
Judicial officers include all magisterial district judges; judges of the Courts of Common Pleas, the Commonwealth Court and the Superior Court; and justices of the Supreme Court. The Court of Judicial Discipline has the authority to impose sanctions, ranging from a reprimand to removal from office, if the formal charges are sustained.
District Court #38-1-09, which Maruszczak presides over, covers West Conshohocken Borough, Upper Merion Township, and the Roberts, Swedeland and Swedesburg election districts.