The final chapter in a lengthy tale of judicial misconduct and open records has been written.

On August 22, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion in which the Court held that "based on the misconduct proven under Counts I, II, III, and VII [of the Judicial Conduct Commission's Amended Notice of Proceedings and Charges, Judge Jamie] Jameson’s removal from office was appropriate."

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wpsdlocal6.com/content/tnc…

How do judicial misconduct and open records coexist in the same dispute? Just so.

One of the substantiated allegations of misconduct leveled against Marshall-Calloway County Circuit Court Judge Jamie Jameson, Count VII, originated in an unsuccessful open records request submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts by Murray State University's public radio station, WKMS. The radio station requested AOC security tape that recorded Jameson's early morning stroll through the courthouse in his underwear.

And as the tale unfolded, it gave rise to an open records lawsuit filed against Murray State by WPSD-Local 6, a news station in Paducah, that ended in a favorable settlement for WPSD.

The Administrative Office of the Courts denied WKMS's request  for the security tape. As the administrative arm of Kentucky's courts, AOC is not subject to the open records law. It's denial was frustrating but unsurprising. The denial apparently ended WKMS's interest in pursuing the story.

https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/supreme-court/1978/570-s-w-2d-617…

Jameson did not know this. Learning of WKMS's open records request for the security tape of his "disrobed" early morning walk through the courthouse, Jameson attempted to coerce the Murray State University's public radio station into abandoning the story.

This, as noted, became Count VII of the Notice of Charges of judicial misconduct Jameson faced in disciplinary proceedings before the Judicial Conduct Commission. In November 2022, the Commission found Jameson guilty of all seven counts of misconduct. Count VII charged him with "us[ing] the power and prestige of [his] office for personal gain." The Commission unanimously voted to remove him from office. Following additional legal maneuvering, Jameson appealed the Judicial Conduct Commission's order to the Supreme Court.

https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/judicial-conduct-commission-declares-ju…

To be clear, the "personal gain," to which the Commission referred, was Jameson's attempt to block the WKMS story after he learned about WKMS's open records request.

In October 2022, WPSD news director Perry Box submitted an open records request to Murray State for communications exchanged by Jameson, Murray State President Robert Jackson, Murray State public radio affiliate WKMS Station Manager Chad Lampe, and other identified individuals. Boxx requested records about Jameson's attempt to use his influence with university officials to kill the story and about Murray State administrators' push back on investigative reporting involving state lawmakers and other public figures and institutions by the WKMS.

Murray Stare partially denied WPSD's request. The news station pursued appeals through the Office of the Attorney General and the circuit court which ultimately resolved the dispute in WPSD's favor. The university and the news station later settled the open records case, agreeing that the university would pay WPSD $132,500, including legal fees of $42,500.

https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/wpsd-tv-murray-state-university-reach-a…

This closed one chapter of the long tale of judicial misconduct and open records.

Last week's Supreme Court opinion closed the other. In a 108 page opinion, the Court found that the Commission "failed to carry its burden of proof in relation to some, but not all, of the misconduct alleged under Counts I and III and that it failed to prove all allegations of misconduct under Counts IV, V, and VI." However, the Court continued, "based on the misconduct proven under Counts I, II, III, and VII [,the open records related Count,]  Judge Jameson’s removal from office was appropriate."

The Court found clear and convincing evidence to support the Commission's finding that Jameson failed to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct; failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary; and abused the prestige of his judicial office to advance his personal interests.

The Court ultimately agreed "that the removal of Judge Jameson from office was an appropriate sanction," bringing to a close disputes in which judicial discipline and open records were strangely intertwined.