Latest news with #ArkansasSupremeCourt
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas Supreme Court authorizes judge suspensions, orders cooperation with disciplinary probes
The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) A five-member majority of the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the state judicial discipline commission's request for changes to the rules for judges' and justices' conduct in a Thursday per curiam order. The changes concern accusations of judicial misconduct and disciplinary action against judges and justices who face such allegations. The divide among the Supreme Court justices who supported or dissented from the order mirrored conflicts within the court earlier this year. Chief Justice Karen Baker and Associate Justice Courtney Hudson dissented from the order. Thursday's order approved two alterations to the Judicial Code of Conduct: a new provision allowing the court to issue interim suspensions of judges accused of crimes or misconduct and an amendment that broadens an existing rule requiring cooperation with disciplinary authorities and prohibiting retaliation. According to the rule regarding suspensions, the Supreme Court may suspend a judge with pay 'upon notice of the filing of an indictment, information, or complaint charging the judge with a 'serious crime' under state or federal law.' In_re_Rule_of_Jud._Disc._Enforcement A 'serious crime' includes 'any felony or lesser crime that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a judge in other respects' or any crime involving 'interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft or an attempt, conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a 'serious crime,'' the rule states. The rule is based on a model policy from the American Bar Association, and the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission specifically asked the high court for the rule, according to the order. The commission investigates complaints about the conduct of judges and justices and has the authority to recommend disciplinary actions. The rule also allows suspensions for 'other misconduct,' which includes but is not limited to 'witness intimidation, retaliation, or a threat thereof.' Another portion of the code of conduct states that a judge 'shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies' and must not retaliate 'against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation' of judicial misconduct. The amended provision approved by the Supreme Court majority specifies that intimidation is also prohibited and that the rule applies to 'a judge, justice, special judge/justice, judicial candidate, or judge-elect.' Earlier this year, the high court ordered the release of a report alleging that Baker harassed judiciary employees on Dec. 4-5, 2024, after she was elected but before she was sworn in as the state's first elected female chief justice. 'Justice Baker intimidated staff, appears to have targeted female employees of color, indicated an intention to retaliate based on her perception of how employees voted, and indicated an intention to retaliate based on her perception of whether employees were cooperating with Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission's investigation into her colleague's conduct,' the report from the Administrative Office of the Courts human resources department states. UPDATED: Arkansas Supreme Court chief justice harassed court staff, per human resources report Baker co-signed Hudson's dissenting opinion on Thursday's per curiam order. Hudson wrote that the rule regarding suspensions 'presents legitimate due-process concerns.' 'It contains absolutely no requirement that notice be provided to the impacted judge either before or after the interim suspension or that the judge be allowed an opportunity to respond to an allegation of misconduct,' Hudson wrote. She also raised the possibility that the rule violates the state and federal constitutions' ban on adopting rules or laws that govern conduct prior to their adoption. Associate Justice Rhonda Wood responded to Hudson's dissent with a concurring opinion. Wood argued that the new rule creates more due process for judges, not less, because it 'provides guidelines previously nonexistent.' The rule also 'sets out parameters for the current authority' that the Supreme Court has always had to suspend judges accused of misconduct and is not a completely new policy applied retroactively, Wood wrote. Judicial conduct has been at the forefront of the Arkansas Supreme Court since September 2024. Five of Hudson's colleagues referred her to the JDDC for 'flagrant breaches of confidentiality' after she filed then-Chief Justice John Dan Kemp's emails into evidence in her attempt to block the release of emails between her, Baker and others in response to a FOIA request from Arkansas Business. Arkansas Supreme Court refers one of its own for disciplinary investigation Baker dissented to Hudson's referral to JDDC, and she made transparency a focus of her successful runoff campaign against Wood to succeed Kemp, who did not run for reelection last year. Within days of taking the oath of office Jan. 1, Baker butted heads with the rest of the court over the scope of her authority as chief justice. Hudson was the only one of Baker's colleagues who did not block the chief justice's attempts to fire 10 judiciary employees and appoint three new judges to the judicial discipline body. The other five justices claimed Baker did not have the authority to make such unilateral decisions without consulting the rest of the court. Issues of judicial misconduct have not been limited to the Supreme Court this year. Former Monroe County district judge and deputy prosecutor T. David Carruth was sentenced in May to two years in federal prison for making false statements to the FBI. He had been admonished by the JDDC in 2018 for improper conduct in violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas Supreme Court releases proposed rule for artificial intelligence
The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) The use of artificial intelligence in legal documents could violate Arkansas law or court rules, according to a proposed administrative order issued by the state Supreme Court last week. Specifically, the proposed order addresses the use of confidential court data with generative artificial intelligence. AI models retain data inputted by users of AI products, such as ChatGPT, in order to continue training the large language models that exploded into public use only a few years ago, the order notes. 'Anyone who either intentionally or inadvertantly [sic] discloses confidential or sealed information related to a client or case [to a generative AI model] may be violating established rules,' the proposed order reads, specifically citing Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order Number 19, the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct. Additionally, the proposed order prohibits anyone with internal access to the state's court system, CourtConnect, from 'intentionally exposing our state courts' internal data to a GAI.' The proposed order provides an exemption to this prohibition if approval is granted by the Supreme Court's Automation Committee to engage in 'a research and analysis project related to the use of generative AI tools and general AI for the benefit of our courts.' The proposed order does not appear to address questions of broader use of AI by attorneys within the state court system. Judges in courtrooms across the country in recent months have expressed frustration with attorneys who have filed briefs and other documents bearing citations to nonexistent or irrelevant cases as a result of so-called 'AI hallucinations,' leading to sanctions in some cases. As reported by the Alabama Reflector, for example, lawyers who were being paid millions by the Alabama Department of Corrections to defend it against lawsuits filed by prisoners in the state system were called out by an inmate's attorneys for making up legal citations 'out of whole cloth' in a lawsuit where their client alleged being stabbed repeatedly while in restraints. The federal judge presiding over the case said that the incident showed that sanctions levied by other courts had proven 'insufficient' to deter lawyers from filing documents with improper or made up citations created by AI. 'That causes me to consider a fuller range of sanctions,' Judge Anna M. Manasco said. The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Automation created a subcommittee to 'study the use of AI in the courts.' The introduction to the proposed order notes that as the committee continues its work, it will make recommendations. The comment period for the proposed administrative order ends on Aug. 1. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas Corrections Board lawsuit against governor stays alive with Supreme Court ruling
Arkansas Supreme Court (Courtesy Photo) A lawsuit over who has the ultimate authority over the state prison system gained renewed life Thursday with the dismissal of a state appeal of a lower court preliminary injunction. The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court on Dec. 14, 2023 against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the secretary of state and Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from 'usurpation by the Governor or the General Assembly, or both,' according to Thursday's ruling. Arkansas judge sides with prison board in dispute with governor, corrections secretary A circuit court judge granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed. The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and the case dismissed as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify the corrections board's attorney from further participation in proceedings before the court. In its motion to remand, the state argues the controversy ended when the board fired former Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri. The firing was part of a dispute between the board and the executive branch that started in late 2023 over who controls the state's prison system. The board's refusal in November 2023 to approve a request to increase prison capacity by 500 beds prompted harsh public criticism from Griffin and Sanders. The board responded by hiring an outside attorney the following month to represent it in employment matters. Because Profiri was fired prior to the entry of the preliminary injunction, the lower court's finding of irreparable harm was erroneous, the state argued. The board said it wasn't seeking court confirmation of its right to fire Profiri, but relief from the legislation regarding the board's authority under Amendment 33. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Karen Baker said she agreed with the board's assertion that Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the ultimate question of whether the board controls the secretary or division directors, and therefore the dispute is not specific to the individual holding the secretary's office. 'The Board's complaint concerns the Challenged Legislation and the resulting changes to the Board's supervisory authority. This dispute exists notwithstanding the individual who holds the Secretary position and is not personal to Secretary Profiri,' Baker wrote. 'Further, because this case presents an existing legal controversy, it is not moot. Therefore, we deny appellants' motion to remand.' The state also filed a motion to disqualify the legal counsel obtained by the corrections board, arguing the firm was obtained illegally. The board didn't follow state law for securing outside counsel, and the board did not have the 'authority to hire special counsel because the Board is not a constitutional officer,' the attorney general's motion argued. The circuit court denied this motion, explaining that 'the Board is a constitutionally created board, making its members constitutional officers' who therefore had the legal authority to hire special counsel. The attorney general typically represents state agencies, but state law gives constitutional officers the ability to hire outside counsel when they disagree with the attorney general over a constitutional provision. In dismissing this motion, Baker notes the board correctly points out that 'an order denying a motion to disqualify adversary's counsel in a civil proceeding is not an appealable final order.' 'As a general rule, an appeal from an interlocutory decision brings up for review only the decision from which the appeal was taken, here, the granting of an injunction,' Baker wrote. The motion to disqualify the attorney is outside the scope of the Supreme Court's review of the preliminary injunction, she said. The high court majority affirmed the lower court's issuance of an injunction because its 'findings that there would be irreparable harm were not clearly erroneous.' The crux of the lawsuit, Baker wrote, is whether the board retains ultimate authority over the corrections secretary and directors or whether the challenged legislation constitutionally transfers that power to the governor and corrections secretary. 'The evidence presented to the circuit court demonstrates that, in the absence of the injunction, the dispute will be ongoing until the constitutionality of the Challenged Legislation is resolved,' Baker said. 'This, coupled with appellants' failure to even argue their likelihood of success on the merits, leaves us with little choice under our deferential standard of review. 'We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated that irreparable harm would result in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction, and we affirm,' she added. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court Special Justices Troy Braswell and Bud Cummins joined in the decision. Associate Justice Barbara Webb concurred in part and dissented in part. Associate Justice Shawn Womack dissented. Associate Justices Cody Hiland and Nicholas Bronni, both of whom were appointed by the governor, did not participate. Webb wrote that she agreed with the majority that the matter is not moot because Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the question of whether Acts 185 and 659 of 2023 are unconstitutional. She also agreed that it's not appropriate to disqualify the board's counsel at this time. However, she argues the board 'failed to demonstrate irreparable harm' and the circuit court therefore erred in enjoining the challenged acts. 'The crux of the Board's claim for irreparable harm was Secretary Profiri's alleged acts of insubordination, which were directly attributable to Act 185 requiring the Secretary to serve at the pleasure of the Governor rather than the Board,' Webb wrote. 'This harm is not irreparable…By definition, if a secretary may be terminated and his actions undone, then it cannot be said that any harm resulting therefrom is 'irreparable.'' In his dissenting opinion, Womack argues the court must vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the lawsuit because sovereign immunity bars the board's lawsuit against the governor, corrections secretary and Department of Corrections. Sovereign immunity, which Womack cites often in court opinions, is the legal doctrine that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. 'Even if that was not so, the Board would still lose because it failed to show irreparable harm — a necessary element to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction,' Womack wrote 'Therefore, I also join the other dissenting opinion in this case.' Regarding the issue of the disqualification of the board's 'potentially illegally retained counsel, I again remind citizens of this state of their ability to protect themselves 'against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever,'' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Yahoo
Arkansas Court of Appeals overturns 60-year prison sentence in Pine Bluff shooting
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – The Arkansas Court of Appeals overturned a 60-year prison sentence for a man in connection with a 2018 Pine Bluff shooting. Joseph Gilbert was found guilty of battery by a jury in a 2023 trial. The court on Wednesday ruled that Gilbert's right to a speedy trial had been violated and dismissed the verdict. The jury had sentenced Gilbert to 60 years and a $15,000 fine for battery in the first degree and the use of a gun during the crime. Arkansas Supreme Court orders gag order lifted in Lonoke County deadly shooting The jury verdict and the appeals court decision came after a Nov. 17, 2018, shooting in Pine Bluff of a woman in her home. Police questioned Gilbert about the shooting the day after the shooting, but he gave an alibi and was released. Gilbert had gone to the police station to give his alibi and was shackled while waiting for a detective to speak with him, according to the court's ruling. He was released after speaking with the detective. Court documents show Arkansas filed a criminal information charging Gilbert with battery in January 2019. Officials served an arrest warrant on him in October 2022. Arkansas felon can apply for early parole due to loophole in state law In November 2023, a jury sentenced Gilbert to prison. Prior to the conviction, Gilbert filed a motion on July 21, 2023, requesting that his case be dismissed on grounds of speedy trial. As pointed out in the appeals court order, the time between his initial arrest in November 2018, when the detective shackled him, and his trial date exceeded 12 months, thereby violating the speedy trial provision of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Jefferson County Circuit Court denied the appeal, stating that he was not arrested until October 2022 and the earlier questioning did not constitute an arrest. Arkansas Supreme Court decides TikTok vs. Arkansas case will go forward, denies dismissal request The appeals court disagreed with the circuit court in its ruling, stating that 'under any definition,' Gilbert was arrested when a detective shackled him, preventing him from leaving. The court also noted in the ruling that 'Arrest' is not defined in the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Arkansas Supreme Court orders gag order lifted in Lonoke County deadly shooting
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A Thursday ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court is expected to lead to a gag order being lifted in a deadly Lonoke County shooting. The case came to the court on behalf of Aaron Spencer, who is facing charges of second-degree murder in the October 2024 shooting death of 67-year-old Michael Fosler. Lonoke County deputies arrest man after altercation leads to deadly shooting According to court records, Fosler had been charged in July 2024 with 'numerous sexual offenses against Spencer's teenage daughter, and he was released on bond.' On the night of the shooting, Spencer realized his daughter had left the house and went looking for her. He found Fosler's truck with his daughter inside and forced it off the road. 'After an altercation, Spencer called 911 to report he had shot Fosler. Fosler died at the scene,' court records state. National pharmacy company sues Arkansas over law eliminating PBM pharmacy ownership The record continues that the state requested a gag order on the case on Dec. 4, 2024, due to what it called extensive media coverage, including a news release from Spencer's attorneys that described him as a 'heroic father.' The state argued that the coverage and public statements would lead the community to side with Spencer, thereby harming the integrity of the jury pool. On Dec. 9, 2024, Spencer's attorney filed an opposition to the gag order. On Dec. 10, the court put the gag order in place 'without holding a hearing,' according to the filing. Spencer then requested the Supreme Court issue a command, called a 'writ of certiorari,' to the lower court to lift the gag order. His request cited the First Amendment and the Lonoke circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court honored that request on Thursday, and the writ was issued. In its ruling, the court stated: '[W]e hold that the circuit court's action in entering the challenged gag order was on its face a plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion and in excess of its authority. Further, there is no other adequate remedy except for a writ of certiorari.' Arkansas Supreme Court decides TikTok vs. Arkansas case will go forward, denies dismissal request The ruling also cautioned the court against sealing the case's proceedings from the public, citing it as a constitutional violation. Spencer's attorneys, Erin Cassinelli and Michael Kaiser, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision has far-reaching implications. 'The Court has given clear guidelines for gag orders that will help the public, litigants, and courts across the state appropriately assess case-related speech as balanced with the strong First Amendment protections that are a bedrock of our society,' they stated. 'No longer will state courts be permitted to allow a prosecutor to release alarming and potentially misleading information while a circuit court blanketly restricts a citizen's public explanation of his innocence.' CVS Pharmacy files suit against Arkansas over new law preventing PBM ownership of pharmacies They continued that they appreciated the Supreme Court's 'turning the lights back on in Lonoke County.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
