Flagler Circuit Judge Scott Dupont faces new misconduct charges
Circuit Judge Scott DuPont
By Frank Fernandez
Posted Aug 17, 2017 at 11:24 AM
Updated Aug 17, 2017 at 11:24 AM
Daytona News-Journal
The trouble continues to mount for Flagler County Circuit Judge Scott Dupont who is now facing additional charges of misconduct, according to a state judicial panel notice issued Thursday.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission had already found probable cause that DuPont posted unverified “scandalous information” about his challenger Malcolm Anthony and Anthony’s family during a heated campaign in 2016.
Now the panel has found probable cause for additional charges:
On May 31, 2017, Dupont was to preside over two hearings in the case of city of Palm Coast v. The Golf Group of Palm Coast, which were set to start at 11 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. Attorneys for The Golf Group called to say they were running late because of an accident on the interstate. Scott agreed to wait but then he took the bench at 11:16 a.m. and conducted the hearings without The Golf Group attorneys there. DuPont questioned and heard from the city’s attorney and then ruled in Palm Coast’s favor. The Golf Group’s attorneys arrived at 11:22 a.m. Scott later denied a request to disqualify himself.
In 2012, DuPont is accused of threatening to jail a victim in a domestic violence hearing after the woman said she could not pay for a psychological evaluation ordered by DuPont, according to the amended notice of formal charges from the Judicial Qualifications Commission. DuPont questioned her about her ability to pay, asking her who paid for her cellphone, if she had one. DuPont also asked if she could sell the beaded jewelry she was wearing.
During the Memorial Day weekend in May 2016, DuPont held a first appearance hearing earlier than scheduled even though neither prosecutors nor public defenders were present. ”(DuPont) significantly increased the bonds of some defendants without counsel,” according to the amended notice of formal charges.
In 2011, DuPont presided over a family law case in Putnam County when a person before him said he could not pay support. DuPont ordered a deputy to search the person and seize anything of value and money.
DuPont of Welaka presides over circuit civil cases in Flagler County and Putnam Counties. DuPont was elected in 2010 to his first six-year term.
On Aug. 30, he won 62 percent of the vote to win his second term to the job which pays $146,000 per year. But the commission found probable cause he violated a number of rules on his way to that victory.
DuPont had already accepted responsibility for the previous charges, according to a response he filed last year.
“I regret having placed the Judicial Qualifications Commission and, ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court, in the position of having to address my actions, In taking full responsibility for my actions, I understand and accept that I will be subjected to sanctions for my conduct. This behavior will never happen again,” DuPont wrote in his response released on Tuesday on the Florida Supreme Court website.
The previous case remains open and the Judicial Qualifications Commission will make a recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court, which could hand down discipline from a public reprimand up to suspension or removal from office.
----------------------
BEFORE THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL OF THE
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, SC16-2103
THE HONORABLE SCOTT DUPONT,
No. 16-377
_________________________________/
AMENDED NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES
TO: Hon. Scott DuPont
Circuit Judge, 7th Judicial Circuit
410 St. Johns Avenue
Palatka, Florida 32177
The Investigative Panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission,
at its meetings of October 28, 2016 and August 11, 2017, by a vote of the
majority of its members, pursuant to Rule 6(f) of the Rules of the Florida Judicial
Qualifications Commission and Article V, Section 12 (b) of the Constitution of
the State of Florida, found that probable cause exists for formal proceedings to
be instituted against you. Probable cause exists for the following formal charges:
1. While engaged in a contested election to retain judicial office, you
had a campaign website created and maintained to assist in your election. On the
homepage of that website you had a tab devoted to your opponent entitled,
“About Judge DuPont’s Opponent.”
RECEIVED, 08/16/2017 06:03:29 PM, Clerk, Supreme Court
If a viewer clicked on that tab, it took the viewer to a page where you posted the
results of a search you obtained through an internet website, “Instant
Checkmate.”
Before a search can be conducted on the “Instant Checkmate” website, a caution
notice appeared. That notice stated in part, “Please BE CAREFUL when
conducting a search….” At the bottom of this website’s initial page the
disclaimer stated, “The information available on our website may not be
100% accurate, complete or up to date, so do not use it as a substitute for
your own due diligence, especially if you have concerns about a person’s
criminal history.”
In spite of those warnings, and instead of taking any steps to verify the
scandalous information about your opponent found on the website, you
recklessly posted the results of the search under the heading “Do You Trust
[your opponent’s name] to be your Circuit Judge?” Those unsubstantiated
and unverified entries included:
a. A suggestion that your opponent employed aliases, when in fact
you had no information that he did so.
2
b. A suggestion that there existed “Imposter Information” about your
opponent, which implied he had posed as an imposter. You did this
with no information that would justify the inclusion of the listing
for any other purpose than to impugn your opponent.
c. Your posting of the entries stated that your opponent had received
three parking tickets for parking in a handicapped zone, yet you
never verified whether your opponent personally received the
tickets or if it was a third party using his vehicle. In response to the
6(b) Notice of Investigation in this inquiry, you only produced two
such tickets. To compound the inappropriate imputation, the
heading of the entries listed “booking dates” that suggested there
was an arrest associated with those entries, which was not accurate.
d. You posted information that stated that your opponent’s wife had
been arrested 3 times, and his daughter had been arrested 21 times.
You did nothing to verify the accuracy of those statements and you
posted this information in spite of not even knowing the identities
of your opponent’s wife or children.
3
2. Your website implied that your opponent’s legal name change was
an attempt to hide his past by stating that he was managing member of
HideYourPast.com in 2013, and then stating that he changed his legal name.
Your opponent’s name change was legally completed in 1990, but nowhere did
you provide that information.
3. At a televised candidate forum, you asserted facts about your
opponent’s driving record that were not accurate, and you did nothing to verify
the information. Rather, you relied on an e-mail from a person working on your
campaign that suggested your opponent received a ticket for passing a school bus
while it was loading or unloading children. In response to the 6(b) Notice of
Investigation in this inquiry, you were unable to provide any documentation to
substantiate your assertions.
4. During that same forum, you declared that your opponent had
cheated during a straw poll administered by the Volusia County Bar Association,
which was misleading in that you had no information your opponent had any
personal involvement or knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing.
5. During the same forum, you announced your position that it is not
the role of a circuit court judge to determine whether a given statute is
4
unconstitutional, because that would be “legislating from the bench.” You
further stated that you have refused to find statutes unconstitutional and that “[i]f
they don’t like the decision, they can appeal it.” In doing so you announced your
position that you would not find any statute to be unconstitutional. Previously
upon assuming your judicial office, you had sworn under oath to uphold the
Constitution of the United States and the Florida Constitution.
6. Prior to making public the material critical of your opponent, you
were advised not to publish the material by two judges, on two separate
occasions. On one of the occasions, you were advised to be certain of the
accuracy of the information.
7. You attended a required Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee
training session at the outset of the 2016 judicial campaign. The session
specifically included instruction that compliance with the law, the Code of
Judicial Conduct, and the Election Code, were solely your responsibility, not that
of campaign managers or others. Notwithstanding this instruction, you included
in your response to the initial 6(b) investigation hearing notice that you relied on
your campaign manager for guidance regarding the claims about your opponent.
5
8. You campaigned for election to the Circuit in 2010. In the course
of that campaign, you engaged in a personal attack against your opponent and
published misleading campaign material.
9. In the case of City of Palm Coast, Florida v. The Group Golf of
Palm Coast, LLC, (Flagler County case # 2016-CA-000639), on May 31, 2017,
hearings were noticed and scheduled for 11:00 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. At
approximately 10:30 a.m. you were informed that counsel for Group Golf of
Palm Coast were en route to the hearing but would be delayed by 10 to 15
minutes because of a traffic accident on the interstate. You agreed to wait for
counsel to arrive. At 11:16 a.m. you took the bench and presided over both
hearings before counsel for the Golf Group had arrived. You engaged with the
City’s counsel by asking questions, and allowing her to make arguments related
to her motions. You ruled in favor of the City of Palm Coast on both motions and
left the bench at 11:19 a.m. Golf Group’s attorneys entered the courtroom at
11:22 a.m. and were informed that you had already conducted the hearing. You
subsequently denied a request for Disqualification based on these facts.
10. In May 2016, you presided over first appearance hearingsin Putnam
County during the extended Memorial Day weekend. Your judicial assistant
6
circulated e-mails to court personnel advising that, for the three-day holiday
period, first appearance hearings would commence at 7:00 a.m. on Saturday,
7:00 a.m. on Sunday and 6:30 a.m. on Monday. Your judicial assistant
apologized in an e-mail to court personnel, explaining that Judge DuPont had
“27 places to be in (4) counties over these (3) days or the early times would not
be necessary.”
You were at the time campaigning for reelection inasmuch as your opponent had
announced his intention to run against you for your circuit seat a month earlier.
On Saturday, May 28, you conducted the first appearance hearings at 6:30 a.m.
instead of 7:00 a.m. as your judicial assistant had advised. When you conducted
the hearings, there were no lawyers present for either the State of Florida or the
Public Defender’s Office. You proceeded to handle all matters that morning
without counsel. You significantly increased the bonds of some defendants
without counsel.
11. In 2012, you presided over a domestic violence hearing prompted
by petitions seeking injunctions for protection by each party against the other.
After the evidentiary portion of the hearing, you ruled that an injunction for
protection would lie in favor of one party but not the other. With respect to the
7
party who you determined was not responsible for domestic violence (the victim
of the other party’s behavior), you nevertheless ordered that party to undergo a
psychological evaluation, and follow any treatment recommended by the
provider. You further ordered the victim to comply with the Court’s order or she
would be jailed.
After a period of non-compliance by the victim, you issued an order of contempt.
The victim later announced at a hearing that the cost of the evaluation was
significant and that she was indigent. You engaged her in a dialogue about her
ability to pay, asked if she had a cellular phone, who paid for it and if she could
sell the beaded jewelry she was wearing at the hearing. You found her testimony
to be not credible, found her in contempt of court, and ordered an indefinite
period of incarceration if she did not seek the evaluation.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed your decisions.
12. In 2011, you served over the family law division in Putnam County.
A party appeared before you and asserted an inability to pay support. You
ordered the deputy sheriff to search the individual to determine if there was
anything of value on his person, and directed that the deputy seize the money
that was in his possession.
8
The foregoing conduct, if proved as alleged, constitutes inappropriate conduct
and violates Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3E, 5A and 7A, of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, and Article V, Section 13 of the Florida Constitution.
You are hereby notified of your right to file a written answer to these charges
within twenty (20) days of service of this notice upon you. The original of your
response and all subsequent pleadings must be filed with the Clerk of the Florida
Supreme Court, in accordance with the Court’s requirements. Copies of your
response should be served on the undersigned Counsel for the Judicial
Qualifications Commission, and the General Counsel of the Commission.
9
Dated this 16th day of August, 2017.
BEDELL, DITTMAR, DeVAULT, PILLANS & COXE
Professional Association
Special Counsel
By: /s/Henry M. Coxe, III
Henry M. Coxe, III
Florida Bar No. 0155193
E-mail: hmc@bedellfirm.com
Brian T. Coughlin
Florida Bar No. 0713732
E-mail: btc@bedellfirm.com
101 East Adams Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Telephone: (904) 353-0211
Facsimile: (904) 353-9307
Michael L. Schneider
General Counsel
Florida Bar No. 525049
mschneider@floridajqc.com
Judicial Qualifications Commission
P.O. Box 14106
Tallahassee, Florida 32317
Telephone: (850) 488-1582
No comments:
Post a Comment