Charges against judge dismissed

Arkansas’ judicial watchdog on Tuesday dismissed ethics charges against Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen, bringing to an end its long-running investigation into Griffen’s 2017 anti-death penalty demonstration in front of the Governor’s Mansion.

Marie-Bernarde Miller, an attorney for the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, confirmed Wednesday that the commissioners had met the previous evening and decided to dismiss the complaint against Griffen, “based on special counsel’s failure to prosecute.”

The commission — whose executive director,

David Sachar, had recused from the case after it also ensnared the entire Arkansas Supreme Court — had appointed two out-of-state attorneys to prosecute the case against Griffen. A succession of difficulties involving one of the attorney’s military duties and the other’s health problems had caused long delays, though a trial was scheduled to begin today.

Griffen’s attorneys sought to have the case dismissed earlier this month, arguing that it had run past an 18-month deadline for the commission to consider complaints.

The commission rejected that request, and after excluding some of the delays that were granted at the request of Griffen’s legal team, it concluded that as of today, a little more than two weeks remained before the deadline. Then, special counsel Rachel Michel of Mississippi requested to be recused from the case, Miller said, potentially pushing the trial back beyond the deadline.

Miller said the commission on Tuesday declined Michel’s request to recuse but also determined that the case could not go forward before the deadline. The commission decided to drop the matter.

“No decision was made in

the merits of the case,” Miller said.

The Arkansas Times first reported on the dismissal Wednesday morning, citing public statements released by Griffen.

Griffen’s attorney, Mike Laux, added to his frequent criticisms of the commission’s handling of the case Wednesday, calling the original charges “baseless” and questioning why no news release was put out announcing that the complaint had been dismissed.

“In the end, nobody wanted their names associated with this,” Laux said.

Griffen’s decision to stage a protest against the death penalty in April 2017 coincided with a series of executions the state planned to carry out that month. The same day he held his protest in front of the Governor’s Mansion, Griffen issued a legal ruling that temporarily threatened to stall the executions. That decision was later overturned, and four of eight planned executions went ahead as scheduled.

As a result of his protest, Griffen was barred by the Arkansas Supreme Court from hearing further cases involving the death penalty.

Griffen himself filed ethics charges against the seven members of the Supreme Court, alleging that they had violated his right to due process in stripping him of cases.

The commission dismissed charges against each of the justices in November, determining that no evidence of “fraud, corrupt motive or bad faith” existed in the justices’ actions.

An attorney for the justices, Robert Peck, said Wednesday that he had been notified of the dismissal of charges against Griffen in an email from the commission. While the justices were not a party to the complaints against Griffen, Peck had successfully quashed an effort earlier this month to force the justices to testify.

Peck declined to offer additional comment on the decision.

Miller, the commission attorney, said an order will be created in the next few days to fully explain the decision.

Laux, however, said the matter was not over and suggested that he would file a federal lawsuit on Griffen’s behalf, though he declined to elaborate on who would be sued.

“This is an employment issue now,” Laux said.

Griffen had previously sued the Supreme Court justices in federal court over their decision to strip him of capital cases. That suit was dismissed by a federal judge in Little Rock, whose ruling was supported by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.