E-Filed Document Apr 12 2024 16:44:31 2024-JP-00121-SCT Pages: 28

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

2024-JP-00121-SCT

MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORM ANCE
PETITIONER

V.

JUDGE CARLOS E. MOORE RESPONDENT

RECORD EXCERPT S
JUDGE CARLOS E. MOORE

Oral Argument Requested

On Appeal from the

Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance
No. 2021-322

Terris C. Harris, J.D., LL.M.

THE COCHRAN FIRM-JAC KSON, LLC
197 Charmant Place, Suite 2
Ridgeland, MS 39157
601. 790. 7600 (Telephone)
[email protected] (Email)

Attorney for Respondent

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Docket ......... .. .......... .. ............................................................................................. .1

Recommendation ............. .. .. ....................... ..... ....... .... .......... ...... ............. 2

2
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Terris C. Harris, attorney for Judge Carlos Moore, do hereby certify that I caused to be

hand-delivered a true copy of the foregoing Record Excerpts via MEC:

Rachel L. Wilson, Esq.

Ashley May, Esq.
Executive Director
Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance
660 North State Street, Suite 104
Jackson, MS 39202

Hard copy to:

Hon. Kent McDaniel

Hon. Cynthia Brewer
Ed. Woods, Esq.
Pat Bennett, Esq.
Hon. Ryan Bruhl, Chairman
Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance
660 North State Street, Suite 104
Jackson, MS 39202

Date: April 12, 2024

Isl Terris C. Harris

Terris C. Harris, J.D., LL.M.

3
 INDEX TO CLERK'S PAPERS

Minutes Excerpt (February 12, 2021) ...................................................................... l

Minutes Excerpt (April 8, 2022) .............................................................................2
Order Appointing Committee ............................................................................... .3
Notice of Formal Complaint ................................................................................. 4
Formal Complaint Against Judge Carlos Moore .......................................................... 5
Order Setting Cause for Hearing ...........................................................................24
Motion to Continue ................................. ......................................................... 25
Objection to Motion to Continue ...................... .... .................................................29
Order Denying Motion to Continue ...................................................................... .34
Order for Written Submissions ............................................................................ 35
Respondent's Submission in Lieu of Hearing .. ........................................................ .40
Conunission's Final Response ............................................................................ 58
Committee's Recommendation ........................................................................... 214
Minutes Excerpt (December 8, 2023) ................ ....................................................238
Commission Findings of Fact and Recommendation.................................. ................ 239
Certificate of Costs ......................................................................................... 252
Clerk's Certificate .......................................................................................... 253
 BEFORE TBE MlSSXSSIPPI COMMISSION ON .nJDICIAL PERFORMANCE

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE

NO. 1021-322

RECOMMENDATION

On October 20, 2023 the committee appointed tn conduct the fonnal hearing in the Inquiry

Concerning a Judge No. 2021-322 met to discuss the hearing on the merits by written submissions.

Both the Mississippi Commission oo Judicial Perfonnance ("Comntlssion'i and Carlos Moo.re

(''Respondent,.), provided written submissions. The Committee voted unanimously to

recommend the written submission of the Commission be entered as the Proposed Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of law as follows:

Pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended, the

Mississippi Commission on Judicial Perfonnancc ("Commission'1 filed a Fonnal Complaint

against Carlos Moote ("Respondent"), Municipal Court Judge, City of Grenada, State of

Mississippi, and now recommends that he be publicly reprimanded, removed, suspended for six
(6) years, and fined five thousand dollars (SS,000.00) plus costs.

STATEMENT OP THE ISSJ.reS

1. Respondent's conduct constitutes willful misconduct in office and conduct

prejudicial to the administration ofjustice which brings the judicial office into disrepute pursuant

to Section 177A of the Missisidppi Constitution of 1890, as amended.

2. Respondent violated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU l) into which he

entered on December 1, 2020. In the Dm:mbcr 2020 MOU l, R e s ~ to remove all

Pagclof24 ~~l!IID NOV Og 2023

MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION
ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
000214
posts from his government official Facebook page (previously named ''Judge Carlos Moore"), that

didn't involve court business, leaving only the posts containing information useful to the parties

in that court (e.g. the operating hours, dockets, clinics, dren code and directory). Respondent

was specifically allowed to post judicial news, commentary, historical and current judicial events,

as provided by Canon 48 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent also agreed he would no

longer use the display nainc "Judge Carlos Moore" for his Twitter} account, but rather would use

~squiremoorc. •• Respondent failed to comply with the MOU 1 by posting violative content on all

his social media platforms. He further failed to comply wlth the MOU I by failing to change the

names and/or deleting non-compliant content from such social media accounts. On and after

April 20, 2022, both Respondent's Twitter account and Facebook account utilized the name "Judge

Catlos Moore" and both wero used to make posts he previously agreed that violated the Code of

Judicial Conduct. After this inquiry began, although the exact date is unknown and as yet

undisclosed, Respondent: did finally change the names on his social media accounts.

3. Respondent continued posting racially charged comments using ''Judge Carlos

Moore." , regarduigthe Kyle Rittenhouse iwquittals and Reapondent's belief that if the defendant

had been black that he would have been convicted violated the Code of Judicial Conduct of

Mississippi J\ldges ~ Section 177A of the Missiaslppi Constitution of 1890. Further

Respondent's public comments alluding that judges oannot be empathetic to people who appear

before them that don't "look like them" also violated the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi

Judges and Section 177A oftlle Mississippi Constitution of 1890.

4. Resp0ndent's posting on social ntcdJa. still under the name "Judge Carlos Moore",

I Platbm now knoWn as X.

Pagelof24

000215
about a pending case before him and his offer to dismiss the charges if she retook the ACT and got

admitted to community college by a set date violated the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi

Judgca and Scotian 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890.

STATEMENT OF I1W CASE

S. On April 8, 2022 at im regularly scheduled meeting. the Commission found

probable cause to file a Formal Complaint against Rtiipondent in Inquiry Concerning a Judge No.

2021-322.

6. On July 15, 2022, the Commission filed a Fonnal Complaint charging Respondent

wlth Judicial misconduct, violating Canons l, 2A, 38(5), 3B(9), and 4A of the: Code of Judicial

Conduct of Mississippi Judges and Section 177A of the Misslasippi Constitution of 1890.

(Exhibit A.)

7. Respondent did not file an Ans~r to the Complaint. Rule 8A of the Rules on

Commission on Judicial Pcrfonnan" states ''At the date set for the fonnal hearing. the hcarmg

shall proceed whc:thcr or no1 the judge has fili,d an answer, and whether or not he appears in person

or thro\lgh counsel. The failure of the judge to answ« or appear may be taktn as evidence o/tbt!

/oels alkged bt U.eformal complaiJrJ." (Emphasis added.)

8. On November 30, 2022 the Commission sent Respondent. through his counsel, the

Commission's First Set oflnterrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for AdmissiollB.

Respondent did not Answer the IntcitOgatorlcs, Requests for Production, and Requests for

Admissions or Object to same. Under llulc 36 of the Miss1ssippi Rules of Civil Procedure, each

matter of which an admission is requested is admitted unless a timely answer or objection is made.

(Exhibit B.)

Page3 of24

000216
 9. On May 31, 2023, an Order Sotting Cause for Hearing, with a Sept-ember 22, 2023

hearing date, was issued.

10. On September I 8, 2023, Respondent ftled a Motion to Continue. the Commission

filed an Objection on the same day.

l l. On September 19, 2023, Presiding Member Judge Kent McDaniel denied the

Motion to Continue.

12. On September 20, 2023, Presiding Member Judge Kent McDaniel signed an Agreed

Order granting a hearing on the merits by written subm!saion.

SIJJEMENT OP THE FACTS

Despite onJy being on the bench a little over she (6) years, Respondent has already amassed

multiple violations of the Coclc of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges and Section 177A of the

Mississippi Constitution of l 890.

In December of 2019, Respondent was s.cnt a lcttcr2 from the CommiiSion regarding

posted information on his social media platfonn on open cases heard in his court in violatlon of

canon 38(9). The letter instructed him that the Canons prohibit judges from commenting publicly

on pending or impending cases in any court, that could affect the oott:ome or its fairness and that

be should refrain from this conduct in the future. (Exhibit C.)

In December of 2020, Respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU

I) as a result of his continued use of social media. In MOU I, Respondent acknowledged his

violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Specificlllly, he acknowledgeq that he had Facebook

and Twitter accounts using the name "Judge Carlos Moore" where he regularly posted political

2 Theso type letters arc commonly mer:ed to •• "Do Right Letten."

Page4 of24

000217
 Mdorsements and advertisements for bis law firm and accepted a private reprimand. Respondent

agreed that the posts violated the Canons and agreed to take all n,asonable end necessary steps to

ensure that his posts on social media do not lend the prestige of his office t.o advance the private

interests of his non-judicial activities. Specifically, Respondent agreed to remove any posts from

his government official Facebook page that did not involve 00mt business and only post useful

information regarding the court. Respondent also agreed not to post personal interests. The

MOU I did not preclude posts on judicial news, commentary, historical and cutTellt judicial
evcnt!.3 Respondent was privately reprimanded for the behavior listed in this action. (Exhibit

D.)

In February of 2022, Respondent entered into a second Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU 2) acknowledging his violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct by using his judicial

position in his mistreatment of law enforcement officers in a case he was handling as llll attorney.

Respondent agreed his behavior warranted a public rcpri.miuid and fine. (Exhibit E.) See also

Mias, Comm'n on Judicial Performmace, v, Moore, 356 So. 3d 122 (Miss. 2023).

Despite olearly being put on notice, acknowledging his violative behavior and agreeing t.o

stop posting prohibited information on social media, Respondent continued to do so.4 Despite all

efforts to instruct and rehabilitate, in November of 2021, Respondent posted an social media under

the aecount name "Judge Carlos Moore" regarding the Kyle Rittenhouse acquittals. (Elthibit F.)

Specifically he stated:

If anyone still believe& justice is blind i.nAmcrioa after tho Kyle Rittenhouse
acquittals yesterday. you just refuse to acc.ept an ugly truth. I can almost guarantee

l !hue type posts are apccmcally allowed by Cll\Oll 4B oftbc Code of Iudlcial CondllCt
4 Some prohibited posts Wen, made under the n11me "111dgo CarlDs Moore."
PageSof24

000218
 you that if Kyle bad been black. and killed two white men in the same maMer Kyle

did, he most certAinly would have been cotrvicted. There has never been a greater

need for black lawyers and judges in America to k:eep decrying the blatant

inequities that exist in our criminal justice system and to keep pushing for e. color

blind and more equitable judicial system.

In April of 2023, on the "Judge Carlos Moore" page, Respondent posted infonnation about

a defendant who appeared before him that very day and outlined the conditions she must meet for

him to dismiss her charge, conditions that were not yet met, on a case that was then pending.

(Exhibit G.) The violations of the MOU and his continued disregard for the Code of Judicial

Conduct is the Matter before _the panel.

SUMMARY OF TIIE ARGUMENT

Respondent's actioll8 violated Canons l, 2A, 2B, 3B(S), 3B(9), and 4A of the Code of

Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890.

Respondent's actions e-0nstitutc willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice which bdngs the judicial office into disrepute as defined by this Court.

M/$1. Comm'n on J11dlci11l Paformance v. Htmis, 131 So. 3d 1137, ll42114 (Miss. 2013)

(quoting In Re Qukk, 553 So. 2d 522, 524-2S (Miss. 1989)).

Pursuant to Section lnA of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended,

Commission asserts Respondent should be publicly reprimanded, removed, suspended for .six (6)

years, and fined five thousand dollars ($5.000.00) plus costs. This sanction fits the offense and

satisfies the purpose of sanwons.

Pe.ge6 of24

000219
 ARGUMENT
I, JUDGE MOORE'S CONDUCT coNsmurES
REPEATED, KNOWING, AND INTENTIALLY
WIWUL MISCONDUCT lN OFFICE AND CONDUCT
PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE WHICH BIUNGS nm JUDICIAL OFFICE
INTO DISREPUTE PURSUANT TO SECTION lnA OF
1lIB MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890, AS
AMENDED.

Respondent's conduct constitutes repeat.ed, knowing. and intentionally willftil mis«>nduct

in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice wbioh brings the judicial office

into disrepute pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Con!titution ofl 890, as amended. The

Court has coneist.ently held that willful misconduct in office is:

"the improper or wrong use of power of [her} office by a judge acting

intgtioully or with gross unconccm for (her] conduct and generally in
bad faith ...... the tcnn would encompass . , ... knowing misuse of the office,
whatever the motive. However, these elements at'C not necessary to a
finding of bad faith. A specific lntMt to use the powers of Judicial office to
accomplish a purpose which the judge knew or shouJd have known was
beyond the .legitimate exercise of [her] authority constituted bad faith ....

Wlllful misconduct in office of necessity is conduct prejudicial to the

administration ofjustice which brings the judicial office Into disrepute."

Btmls, 131 So. 3d"' t 142,114 (quotiogQuiak, 553 So. 2datS24-25);Mfss. Comm'n onJ11dlcial

Performance v. .Bowen, 123 So. 3d 381, 384, t 7 (Miss. 2013); MJi.r. Conun'n 011 111.didal

Performance v, Sanford, 941 So. 2d 209, 212-13, 17 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Gibaon, 883 So. 2d

at l 157, 15), (Emphasis added.)

Actual willfuln~s is not alw&}'S required to find a judge's conduct is prejudicial to the

administration ofjustice and bringing the judicial office into disrGpute, however, in Judge Moore's

case, it is hard to say his repeated actions m anything but jntentlonal. Mlts. Comm'n on Jud/tlllJ

Page 7of24

000220
PerforlftflltCI v. Fowlkes, 121 So. 3d 904, 907, t 5 {Miss. 2013) (quoting Miss. Comm'11 on

JudJclal Ptrformonct 11. Hartl.or, 32 So. 3d Jl88, 1193, 1 12 (Miss. 2010) (quoting In re

Andmon, 451 So. 2d 232. 234 (Miss. 1984))

Likewise, miseonduct does not have to be embedded bad behavior, but Judge Moore

acknowledges and has previously agreed that bis behavior violates the Code of Judicial Conduct

and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution." Harris, 131 So. 3d at 1142., 1 14 (quoting

QNid, 553 So. 2d at 527).

According to its Preamble, the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct . • . establishes

standards of ethical conduct ofjudges. 11' Re Bell, 962. So. 2d 537, 5421 16 (Miss. 2007) {citations

omitted). The Preamble ~ . in pertinent part:

The text of the Canons and Sections is infilnded to govern conduct of judges and to
be blndlng upon them. It is not intended, however, th.at every transgression will
result in disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the
degree of discipline to be imposed, :should be detennined thtouBh a reasonable and
reasoned application of the text and should depend on such factors as the
seriousness of the transgn,ssion, whether there is &patMrn oflmpro[Mr octMty and
the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judieial system.

The Code of Judicial Conduct is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct
of judges. They should also be governed in their judicial and personal eond\lct by
general ethical standards. The Code is intended, however, to state basic standards
which should govern tho conduct of all judges aru:I to provide guidance to assist
judges in establishing and maintaining high standards of judicial and personal
conduct. (Emphasis added.)

Mus. Code of Ju.dlclal Conduct, pmbl. (2019). By engaging in the above described conduot,

Respondent vjolatcd Canons 1, 2A, 28, 3B(S), 3B(9), and 4A of the Code of Judicial Conduct of

Mississippi Judges. Those Canons state, in pertinent part;

CANON!
A Jndac Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

Page8of.24

000221
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justi«: in our society.
A judge shall partieipato in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards
of conduct, and ~1 personally observe those stlndards so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary i.s pre.9erVed. The provisions of this Code should be
construed and applied to further that objective.

CANON2
A J•dac Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance ot Impropriety in AIi
Acthities

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law anc.l shall act at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.

B. Judges shall not allow their family, social, or other relationships to influence
the judges' judicial conduct or judgment.Judges shall not lend the prestige of
their offh;es to advaDGC the pti'llte interests of the judges or othr.rs; nor shall
judges convey or permit others to convey the impression that they arc in a
special position to intluence the judges. Judges shall not testify voluntarily as
character witnesses.

CANON3
A Judge Shall Perform tltc Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

B. Adjudicative Responsibilities,

(S) Ajudge shall porformjudicial duties without bias or prejudice. Ajudge shall
not, In the performance of judicial dutic.9, by words or conduct manifest blaa or
prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, gender,
religion, national origin, distbility, age, sexual oriet1tation or socioeconomic
status, and shall not permit staff, court offieials and others subject to the judge's
direction and control to do so. A judge shall refrain from speech, gestures or
other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as se>tUal harassment and shall
require 1ho same standard of conduct of others subject to the judge's direction
and comrol.

(9) A judge shall not, while a proceeding ls pending or impending In any court,
make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its
outcome or impair its flliriN,ss or make any nonpublic comment that might
substantially interfere with a fair trial or bearing. The jud~ shall require similar
abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's ditection and
control. This Section does not prohibit judges from. making public statements
in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information
the procedures of the court. This Section does not apply to proceedings In which

Pagc9of24

000222
 the judge is i litigant in a pusonal capacity.

CANON4
A Judge Shall So Conduct the Judge's :Extra-Judicial Activitie1 as to Minimize
the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Obligations

A. Extra-judicial Activities in Oeneral. A judge shall conduct all of the judge's

cxtra~judicial activities so that they do not:

(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capaGity to act impartially as a judge;

(2) demean the judicial office; or

(3) interfere with the proper perfonnance of judicial duties.

Miu Code. of l'tldldal Conduct, Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3:8(5), 3B(9), and 4A (2023).

DISl>ARAGING RAO.AL INSULTS

Respondent alleges in the first line of his "Facts" section that if his comments were made

by other Judgc:3, things would not have risen to this level. This ls clearly not true as evidenced by

tho fact that the Mississippi Supreme Court has recognized at least twice that judges making

disparaging insults, that were racially divisive or critica~ are violations of Canons 1, 2(A), 2(B),

and 3(B)(5) and arc not protected by the 1st Amondmcnt

In Mis$. Com,n'n on ludlcilJI Paformanct v. Boland, 915 So. 2d 882 (Miss. 2008),

witnesses heard Judge Boland saying African-Americans could go to hell. Judge Boland

appeared t.o make these type statements specifically about the African-American officials in

attendance at the conference she was attending as well as African-American officials in Hinds

County. The Court ordered a public reprimand aod assessment of costs.s

In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v, Osborne, 11 So. 3d 107 (Miss. 2009), Judge

S The Court noted that thoy did not impose a suapcn,ion bc«;awe 1udg!! Boland no longer held her judicial position.
Page 10 ofl4

000223
Osborne was quoted as saying "White folks don't praise you unless you're a damn fool. Unless

they think they can use you. If you have your own mind and know what you 're doing, they don't

wMt you around." The Court ordered Judge Osborne suspended from offa,e for a period of one

yeu and assessed costs.

The language used by Judge Osborne is similar to the language Respondent used In his

November of 2021 social media pcm on the "Judge Carlos Moore" account: "l can almost

guarantee you that if Kyle had been black and killed two white men in the same manner Kyle did,

he most certainly would have been convicted. There hH never been a greater need for black

lawyers and judges in America to keep decrying the blatant inequities that exist in our criminal

justice sys~m and to keep pushing for a color blind and rnore equitable judicial system." The

entirety of the post is quoted here. It included llO discussion of the evidence, only included

statements regarding race.

Respondent did not just make a racially charged social media post, Respondent mado

racially charged comments nationally during his appearance on The Kelly Clarxson Show on June

22, 2022. Ostensibly, Respondent was inviti,d on the show to discuss his "Do Better ASAP''

program. During the interview, Respondent said "There are many judges that don't look like me

and the people that appear bofoce them. 17,ey C/111 not be empathetic btcau,e thep don't look

like tl,e people that go before them but I preside over two jurisdictions where there are African-

Americens, 85/90% of people look like me, and I want to give diem a second chance if they

qualify." (btt,ps:l/www.nbc.com/the-ke!IY:21arkson-show/video/mississippi-iwl~•iiyes-young-

offcnders-second-chances-thru-do-bettef-M41!:PtP£ram{ACCN56339792S) (Emphasis added.)

The Commission exists in part to ensure that judges are impartial and haves empathy to all people.

Page 11 ofl4

000224
Respondent asserttd that judges who don't look like him, cannot be impartial, and in a.aserting that

he wanted to give ''them'' (people who look like him) a second chance, brings into quostion his

own ability to be impartial to the 10 to 15% of the people that "don't look like him". Judges who

are partial and without empathy do not promote public confidenco in the integrity and impartiality

of the judiciary.

Commission does not believe that the racially divi9ive speech uacd by Respondent. using

the Judge Carlos Moore Account, would be protected by the 1n Amendment. The United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Citcnit has found that even if a Judge's .speeeh should not normally

be cause for censure, to the extent ajudge used his judicial posltlon to send his message, censure

is appropriate. lenevem 11. Willbrg493 F. 3d 551, (5"' Cir. 2007) (Emphasis added.)

COMMENTS ON PENDlNG tA8M

Respondent's social media post in April of 2023, still uuder the account name "Judge

Carlos Moore", contained information about a defendant who appeared b~orc him that very day

and the conditions she must meet for him to dismiss her charge. Canon 3B(9) states in relevant

part "'A judge shall not, while a proceeding ii pe11di11g or itnptndlng ill ariy colll't, make any
public comment that might reasonably be expcctcd to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or

make any nonpublic comment that might substantiaUy interfure with a fair trial or hearing."

(Emphasis added.) While all Judges should be on notice of the Mississippi Code of Judicial

Conduct, this exact violation had also already been addre&fflf with Respondent in th0 Do Right

Letter sent to him December of 2019.

It is unclear by Respondent's Case-in-Chief and Sworn Written Submission in Lieu of

Hearing on the Merits if he is alleging I l tt Amendment protection for his comments about cases

Page l2of24

000225
pending before him. The: case cited was Rtpllblicon Party M. Whlu, 536 U.S. 76S and related to

Minnesota's "Announce Clause" which prohibited a _.candidate for judicial office'' from

"announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues". The Minnesota Court found

that anno\lncing one's views on disputed issues during a campaign was language that required

strict s<:rutiny and that while there ~ a compelling state interest. preserving the state judiciary's

impartiality and appearance of impartiality, the language was not narrowly tailored to protect that

state interest. Canon 38(9) of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct is considerably more

narrowed than the open "Announce Clause".

Respondent's submission appears to vehemently defend hls "Do Right Better ASAP"

program, questioning why the Commission would have any problem with it. To be clear,

Commission has taken no position whatsoever regarding the "Do Better ASAP.. pro,gratn and does

not here. Commission seeks to enforce Canon 3B(9) prohibiting a judge from discussing pending

cases before him, especially in a forum that may invite public eommems about that case. That

enforcement is not an overly broad restriction of Respondent's speech.

CANONS VIOLATED

CANON 1.

Canon l of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct (hereinafter "Code'') requires that

Respondent participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct.

Respondent violated this when he made disparaging insults, that were racially divisive or critical.

He further lent the prestige of his office by utilizing the account name "Judge Carlos Moore" for

social media posts that are not authorized under Canon 48 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and

discussing a case pending before him.

Page 13of24

000226
 CANONl.
Canon 2A of the Code requ~ that Respondent compJy with the law and sot at all times

in a manner that promotes the public's confidence in the judiciary. Respondent violated this by

making racially disparaging comments, lending the prostige of his office by utilizing the account

name "Judge Carlos Moore" fot social media posts that arc not authoriud under Canon 48 of the

Code of Judicial Conduct, and discussing a case pending before birn, Proof of the public's

confidence in the judiciary or lack thereof. for at least this particular judge, can be found in the

articles and comments found on the local political blog, Jackson Jambalaya. (Exhibit.. H through

K).

C&non 28 of the Code prohibits a judge from lending the pl'fflige of his office to advance

the private Interests of the judge or others. Respondent knowingly lent the prestige of his office

to advance h.is per110nal interests through hi$ continued uso cf his social media accounts named

"Judge Carlos Moo.re". Respondent also knowingly lent the prestige of his office when he

appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show and stated his apparent belief that a. judge can not show

empathy to a person that docs not look like the judge,

CANON 3,

Canon 3B(S) of the Code requires a judge to pcrfonn judicial duti~ without bias or

prejudice, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or

prejudice based upon r,ace. gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or

sooioeconomic status. (Emphasis added.) In addition to making racially charged posts on social

media under his ''Judge Carlos Moore" account, Rcspandent violat-ed this Canon when be

broadoast his opinion that "There are many judges that don't look like me and the people that

Page 14 of24

000227
appear before them. They can not be empathetic because they don't look like the people that go

before them but I preside over two jurisdictions where there are African-Americans, 85/90% of

people look like me, and 1 want to give them a second chance if they qualify."

Canon 3B(9) of the Cede prohibits a judge from cotnmcnting on a pending or impending

case in any court that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or

substantially interfere: with a faic trial or hearing. Respondent took to social media to discuss a

pending matter before him. violating th.is Canon despite having already been counseled by the

Commission to refrain from such social media posts. Doing so facilitated a means for public

comment on Respondent's own social media platfomi, This is complettly improper.

CANON 4.
Canon 4A of the Code requires a judge to conduct all of the Judge's extra-judicial activities

so that they do not: cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge,

demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper pcrfonnance ofjudicial duties. As discussed

above, Respondent's actions cast reasonable doubt on his ability to a.ct impartially as a judge,

demeaned the judicial office and interfered with the proper perfoanancc: of his judicial duties.

By authority of § 177A of the Constitution, sanctions including removal from office,

suspension, fine or public censure or reprimand may be imposed for "willful misconduct in office

... (or) for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into

disrepute." A judge ma.y run afoul of§ 177A as a result of negligence or ignorance, without bad

faith. Mississippi Comnr'n on Judicial Pu/o1'11111nu v, Osborne, 876 So. 2d 324, 327 (Miss.

2004),

ll. JUDGE MOORE SHOUID BE PUBLICLY

l(E(>RJMANDBD, REMOVED, SUSPENDED FOR SIX

Page 15 of24

000228
 (6) YEARS AND FI.NBD FIVE THOUSAND l)OllARS
(S,000.00) PLUS COSTS, BY THE MISSISSIPPI
SUPREME COURT PURSUANT TO SECTION 177A OF
THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION.

The authority to discipline judgca for misconduct is found in the Mississippi Constitution.6

In determining the appropriate sanctions, this Court has held:

The sanctions irt judicial miffl)nd\lct cases should be prQPOrtionate to the judge's
offense. To detennine whether the recommended sanctions are proportionate to the
offense, this Court follows a six-factor test, which includes: (l) the length and
character ofjudge's public servioe; (2) whcthCf thm is any prior case law on point;
(3) the magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered; (4) whether the misoonduGt
is an isolated incident or cvidenc=i a pattern of oonduc;t;(S) whether the oonduct
W1IS willful, intended to deprive the public of assets, or if it exploited the judge's
position; and (6) the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating factors.

Ham,, 131 So. 3d at 1144 (oitingNw. Comm'n on Judidal Performance v, Boykin, 163 So. 2d
872, 876 (MIBS. 2000): Skinner, 119 So.3d at 300, 307).

(1) The length and character of judge's public senrice

Respondent was appointed Municipal Judge for the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi in July

of 2017. In May of 2020, Respondent was named Municipal Judge for the City of Grenada.

During his six (6) years ag a Municipal Judge, Respondent was I) sent an informal

corrective letter regarding posting about cases pending before him on social media; 2) issued a

6 ~on 177Aatates, in padinant part: On rte0mmendatlon ofthe commission oo judicial porformanc:c,

ch~ Su,,rcmc Court may remove from office, su&pend, fine or publicly censlln! or reprimand fin)-' justice or judse of

th.ls state tor: (1) act\11I (;01).vlctian of a fclo11y in a court O!her 1han a court of die State ofMiaslssippl; (b) wlllful

misconduct in office: (c:) willful BDd peaistent fafiurc to perform his duties; (d) habitual Intemperance in the use of

alcohol or other druz,; or (e) conduet prejudicial to the administration ofjllllic:o which brings the judieial office into
dl~ute.

Page 16 of24

000229
private admonistunent for pcilitical posts on social media under the name ''Judge Carlos Moore";

and 3) issued a public reprimand for utilizing his judicial office t.o summon and embarrass law

cnforccmettt officer in his courtroom on a case where he was tcting as a private attorney. In

addition to R.espondm1t1s history of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi

Judges and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 18901 Respondent's disregard for

ethical boundaries are evidenced by public sanctions ftom State Bars. (ExhibitL and M.)

(2) Whether there is any prior case law 011 point

There arc at least two Mississippi cases on point as to his violations relating to dispar48ing

insults, that were racially divisive or critical. As previously discussed, Judge Boland end Judge

Osborne were publicly reprimanded for making racially charged eomments. Miss. Comm '11 on

Jlldlcial Performance v. Boland, 915 So. 2d 882 (Miss 2008) and Miss. Co1n1n'n on Judicial

PerjOrfflllltU v. 011,on,e, 11 So. 3d 107 (Miss. 2009).

Jmeveiti "· WUllllg, 493 F. 3d 551 (5111 Cir. 2007) does not relate to disparaging racial

remarks but does uphold a cenaurc for remarks made while in a courtroom and wearing a robe.

Respondent may not have been wearing a robe or in his courtroom while making these comments,

but he was certainly holding himself out to be a judge.7

There are plenty of other cases, inoJuding Respondent's own prior public reprimand,

n,garding utilization of a Judicial position to further a judge's personal interest, but a limited

number of cases specifically about the use of social media or statement& to the press.8 In Miss.

Conun'n on Judil:Jhl Performance v. Oilr/acales, 192 So, 3d 991 {Miss.2016), Judge Clinkscales

7 Respondent 11sed, "Judge Carlm Moord' 1ccollllt. The focis of his appearance on The Kelly Clarkson show was
re duouss his judicial program.
a This ii likely in part to the rdatlvoly recent birth of social media.
Page 17 of24

000230
utilized her social media to endorse a political candidate, and gave deceptive responses in a

newspaper interview. Clinkscales was publiely reprimanded and costs were imposed.9

In Mi.u. C(,mm'n on JudJclal PerjontUlil.ce v. Patton, 57 So. 3d 626, (Miss. 2011), Patton

made comments to the local newspaper in an attempt to explain his Judicial actions and justify a

defendant's incarceration. 10 The Court upbeJd a public reprimand, suspension from office

without pay for thirty (30) d&ys, and an assessment of a (one thousand dollar) $1,000.00 fine.

Case law supports, and precedent dictates, that Respondent be publically reprimanded,

removed, suspended from appointnu;nts for atime gortain and tsse$Sed afine along with costs.

(3) The maguitude of tb.e offeue and tbe barm 111frond

lc.$pondent made disparaging insults, that were racially divisive, utiliiing his position as

a judge and publicly commented about a pending case before him. Current cultural climate

recognizes the importance of racial equality and unity. Blastlng racially disparaging divisive

commenta to the world wide web renders anyone who reads Judge Carlos Moore's comments his

target and sufferer of harm.

(4) Whether the misconduct .l!I an isolated incident or cvideneee a patten of conduct

Respandent has been disciplined by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance,

the Miisisstppi Bar, and the teMessce Bar. :Please sec the timcline below.
7/2017 Appointed u Clarksdale Municipal Judge

Sfl019 Public Reprimand from Tennesaee

9/2019 Public Reprimand from the Mississippi Bar

9 Clinkscale also had violatiom unrelated to her social media post or neMpaper interview.
10 Footnote number 10 indicated 1hat the record did not colllain facta lllppOnins 1be public comment but a brief
filed referencing it which the Court CDnaidered unrebuttl!d (and agread to) wertion.t.
Page18of24

000231
12/2019 Commission Do Right Letter instructing him to refrain from such aaion.

5/2020 Appointed as Grenada Municipal Judge

12/2020 Private Reprimand over Respondent's use of social media - RcspondCht agreed

his actions constituted misconduct and agreed to corrective measures but did not titnely do so.

412011 Public Reprimand over Respondent's use of his judicial position to further his

personal law practice.

712023 Failed to timely appear or be properly dressed for his public reprimand in

Grenada County,

Respondent is nothing if not coosi&umt in his predictability in his complete and utter

disdain for any profe~ional conduct rule or Canon of Judicial Conduct. His patterns arc clear

and clearly indicate the likelihood that he will continue in bis same fashion if not removed and

suspended from accepting future positions for a period oftime, such to protect the public.

(5) Whether the eonduct was willful, intended to deprive the pubUc of assets, or jf It exploited

the Jadge's position

In Jettisoning the former "moral turpitude" factor and substituting this factor in its place,

the Supreme Court aaid:

In examining the oxtcnt to which the conduct was willful, we will examine
"whether the judge acted in bad faith, good faith, intentionally, knowingly, or
negligently." In re Coffey's Case. 1~2 N,H, 156, 942 A,2d 102, l 15
aQQBl (quoting A.JS Str«zy ). "[MJisconduct that is the result of deliberation is
generally more serious than that of a spontaneoua nature." In re Coffey's Case,JM.9,
A,2d at 115--16. For example, spontaneous conduct, such as provoked conduct,
may faJl on one end of the spcclTUm, and may indicate a lesser sanction. Planned.
premeditated conduct may fall on the opposite end of the spectrum, indicating the
appropriateness of a harsher sanction. Conduct that is knowing and/or deliberate,
but not the rcsu It of premeditation, may fall between spontaneous and premeditated
conduct
Mils. Comnz'r, on Jutllclrd Performanc, "· Skinner, 119 So. 3d at 306-07.
Page 1Jofl4

000232
 The Respondent's intentional use of his "Judge Carlos Moocc" social media accounts

clce.dy exploited his judicial position. Fut1her, he was on The Kelly Clarkson Show specifically

to discuss his judicial role when he made racially disparaging illSlllts, that were racially divisive.

Respondent previously signed MOU 1 acknowledging misconduct and agreeing to stop utilizing

his "Jud~ Carlos Moore" social media accounts in an inapproptiate manner.

(6) The praence or absenee of mttlgatlng or aggravating facton

There are a plethora of aggrava.tin& factors here, the overall theme of which is a complete

disregard for the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct, the Commission.. and the Mississippi

Supreme Court. Despite previously agreeing these actions ·constitute misconduct, Rupondent is

now ~rting his actions arc not misconduct.

Respondent was told to stop publicly discussing pending cases before hitn on social media

in violation on Canon 3B(9), He continued to do so. In December 2020, Respondent agreed to

change 1he name of his social medi& and/or remove inappropriate contcnt.11 He did not do so

until after July of 2022, after this Complaint was filed against him. The Mississippi Supreme

Court bas multiple oasos holding that racially disparaging remarks are aviolation oftbe Mississippi

Code of Judicial Condmit. Respondeot still made such comments. Respondent was o ~ to

attend and receive a Public Reprimand In both Coahoma County and Grenada County.

Respondent appeared in Coahoma County. Respondent only appear in Grenada County after the

judge contacted him and ordered his appearance. He appeared Jat.e and dre$$ed in blue jeans.

Roepondent chose not to participate in this case until the eve of trial and 1hatwas to request a delay.

When asked to produce evidence of a conflict, he presented a flyer advertising the 2023 CBCF

l l MOU l was intended to prevent him from lending the prutige of his office t<> further his penorial intBrul
Page20 of24

000233
Inc. Annual Legislative Conference Rtteptlon for the doy N/ore the hcaring.12 Respondent did

not file an Answer. Respondent did not answer ANYof the Commission's propounded discovery.

Respondent asked for a delay.

The Commission gave Respondent instruction and multiple opportunities. He has

squandered each of them, He .hti agreed that he violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and

accepted increasingly severe discipline - until now. Now he says that he is "before the

Commission bocausc of comments he made- if made by other Judges would not have risen to this

level." Now he chooses more racially divisive assertions based on no evidence whatsoever. His

repeated actions have risen to this level. He doesn't mind public rtlJrimands. He doesn't mind

fines. AB long as he can keep his platfonn of the bench. Hi1 actions require removal and

suspension from ~pting or seeking judicial oftioe for a period of time sufficient to allow the

public disrepute to mend.

RECOMMENDATION
Commission has done what it was created to do - taken action(s) to restore and maintain

the dignity and honor of the judicial office. [t has done that wi.th Judge Mooro in increasing

severity in the same way it does that with all judges: impartially. Rcspondct1t, in a footnote to his

Respondent's Case--fn-Chicf and Sworn Written Submission in Lieu of Hearing on the Merits,

discUBSed Settlement Negotiations with the Com.mission. Although the Commission objects to

this as a violation of Rule 408 of the Missis.sippi Rules of Evidence, to the extent this information

is admitted and considered, it does not provide the full history, including which sanctions

Respondent was willing to accept. Respondent's only _point of contention was the suspension.

12 There was also a comment about National Bar Association having it& Baard of Dirccton Meeting with no further
deCails.
Page21 of24

000234
Respondent indicated he would again agree to A public reprimand 11nd tine. Tho initial offer was

made prior to the Mississippi Supreme Court handing down its decision in Miss, Comm'n 011

Judfdal Puformat,ce 11, Moore, 356 So. 3d 122. 13 While the Court agreed with the

recommended Public Reprimand and fme, the Court added a sixty (60) day suspension without

pay. Rospondent was advised thit going forward Commission would seek greater discipline

closer to and at trial. Commission adjusted its requested d~ipline to match precedent.

Applying the Skinner factors together witf:1 previous sanctions imposod on Respondent and

others, Commission asserts tJiat removal, significant suspension, a Public Reprimand, and a fine

with costs are proper.14 The primary purpose ofjudicial sanctions is not to punish the individual

judge but to restore and maintain the dignity and honor of the judicial office and to protect the
publit against future excesses. Ml.tt. Cotnm'l'l c,r, Judicial Pa/ortn/J/lce v. G11est, 717 So. 2d

325, 329 (Miss. 1998). Lesser sanctions have not been enough to accomplish that where

Respondent insists on repeating history. Nothing less than removal, suspension, public

reprimand, and a fine will restore and maintain the dignity and honor of the judicial office to protect

the public against future excesses.

Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to "remove

from office,, suspend, fine or publicly censure or reprimand any justice or judge of this state ..."

This Court is not Jimited to one of the options. This Court has routincJy upheld one or more of

13 "the original offer, which was rejected, was foia- (4) weeks suspension. The initial offir was also prior to
R.cspoDdent failins m timely appear, approprittcl)' drwtd, for .his Public Reprimand in Grenada Couniy.
J4 While a pennaneni ban wu discwsed with lwpondent, IIJlllll fiJ!tlw research the Commwlon bmd where
eo.w,,,,,
/111,s. OIi J114idfll 111"/VffUIICO, Darby, 143 So. 3d 564 (MiJa.1014) Indicated that the Mississippi
Con.ttitolioo does not expre.t&ly e.lllpower rhe Mississippi S11ptC111C Court to ordet a pl'Dh.ibition which ''prohibited
from holding judicial e>ffice in the filture." Thus, inllcad of m:ommc:ading a pmnm!Cat ban or pruhibiticn from aver
holding judicial office in tho futuro., the Commission is recol!IIUClldin& 1 timo apedfiod s11Spenslon in addition to
removal.
Page22 of24

000235
the aviilable options with a public reprimand. In Mississippi a judge traditionally has either been

suspended or removed, not both. However, in Mist. Comm n on Judicial Performanu v.

1

Oabor11e, 11 So 3d 107 (Miss. 2009), Osborne had left the bench by the time the Court issued its

decision, but the Court still determined a one (l) year suspension was warranted despite the judge

already having been effectively removed from the bench because the ~ons warranted it

In recent years, many states have imposed significant suspensions for judges who are

violating judicial canons and Commission asserts that it is appropriate here. In Michigan various

judges have been suspended for six (6) years. In re Davis, 991 N.W. 2d 212 (2023) and In re

McCres, 495 Mich. 51 (2014). In New Jersey, Theresa B. Mullen was removed ftom judicial

office and permanently barred from again holding judicial office in the state again for her use of

her judicial position in her family's lawsuit. Mattu of Mullt11. 1 2.53 NJ. 49 (2022), In Ohio,

'Pinkey Carr was indefinitely suspended from the pmticc of law and from judicial office in large

part due to the number of ethical infractions. Disciplinary Counul v. Carr, I70 Ohio St 3d 401

(2022). Respondent, being as egregious u Osborne, as ambitious a, Mullen, and his violations

as numerous as Carr warrants the strongest of sanctions. The Commi"ion recommends a public

reprimand, removal from office, suspension for six (6) years, and a five thousand dollar

($5,000.00) fine plus costs.

CONCLUSION

Commission submits that the misconduct of Carlos Moore, MunJcipal Court Judge of

Grenada, Mississippi and Municipal Court Judge of Clarksdale, Miuissippi, constitutes willful

misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the

judieiaJ office into disrepute in violation of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890,

as amended. Commission submits that Respondent should be publicly reprimanded, removed from
Page23 ofl,

000236
his ourrent office, suspended for six (6) years, and tined five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) plus

costs, pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. His actions demand it.

so RECOMMENDED, this the _j_ day of NOt/imbec, 2023.

~ ( ' / \';_~
Judge Kt1nt M~(retircd), Presiding

Ed Woods, Esquire

Page24of24

000237