Judicial Inquiry & Review Comm'n v. Pomrenke

Citation: Not availableDocket: 170889

Court: Supreme Court of Virginia; November 26, 2017; Virginia; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission of Virginia filed a complaint against Judge Kurt J. Pomrenke, alleging violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct related to his conduct as a judge. The Commission cited specific instances of misconduct while Judge Pomrenke was serving in the Twenty-Eighth Juvenile and Domestic Relations Judicial District. The formal charges were issued on January 17, 2017, and included allegations that he attempted to influence witnesses in the criminal trial of his wife, Stacey Pomrenke, who faced multiple corruption charges as an executive at the Bristol Virginia Utilities Authority.

The first allegation involved a handwritten note sent by Judge Pomrenke to his wife’s employer, expressing gratitude for support during her legal troubles and asserting her innocence. This note included his business card identifying him as a judge. The second allegation pertained to a voicemail left for a potential witness, where Judge Pomrenke suggested ways to provide supportive testimony for his wife during the trial. These actions raised concerns about the integrity of the judicial process and prompted the Commission to seek censure or removal of Judge Pomrenke from the bench due to the gravity of the alleged violations.

On February 26, 2016, Mrs. Pomrenke was convicted on 14 out of 15 corruption charges, prompting a federal district court judge to initiate a contempt prosecution against her, partly due to a note she sent to Bowman. This prosecution also included a voicemail left for Moffatt. During the contempt hearing, a federal magistrate indicated that the evidence could establish probable cause for witness tampering or obstruction of justice. Ultimately, Mrs. Pomrenke was found guilty of contempt, with the judge noting her improper actions but stating they were not the focus of his adjudication.

Judge Pomrenke responded to the Commission’s charges on February 8, 2017, arguing that his actions did not constitute judicial misconduct or violate any Canons of Judicial Conduct. He admitted to sending the note and leaving the voicemail but claimed he was unaware that Bowman was a potential government witness and did not intend to intimidate anyone. He acknowledged that he would not repeat such actions.

The Commission held an evidentiary hearing on June 13, 2017, during which Bowman testified. He had been employed as BVU's president since November 2014 and was aware of ongoing federal corruption investigations at the time. After receiving the note from Judge Pomrenke, which he found shocking, Bowman promptly informed the U.S. Attorney. Although he was listed as a potential witness in Mrs. Pomrenke’s trial, he did not ultimately testify. Bowman expressed concerns about the unusual nature of the communication from the judge, who had significant community influence, and indicated that he did not view Mrs. Pomrenke favorably. Despite stating that the note would not have altered his testimony, he felt troubled by it.

Edward Stout and Ray Ferris provided character testimony for Judge Pomrenke, describing him as honest, hardworking, optimistic, and community-oriented. Stout emphasized Judge Pomrenke's prolific note-writing, while Ferris highlighted his loyalty and caring nature, asserting Judge Pomrenke felt remorseful about his actions, which were influenced by emotional distress related to his wife's situation. Judge Pomrenke acknowledged that he did not consider the Canons when communicating with Bowman and Moffatt, acting from a husband's perspective rather than as a judge. He admitted that his messages were inappropriate, particularly regarding Moffatt as a potential witness, and expressed understanding of how his actions were wrong and misleading.

He explained his motivations for sending a note to Bowman, thanking him for support during his wife's legal troubles, and acknowledged that he had previously dismissed the idea that his actions violated the Canons. Ultimately, Judge Pomrenke recognized his errors and committed to avoiding similar conduct in the future. The Commission found that his actions violated Canons 1, 2A, and 2B, determining these violations warranted potential retirement, censure, or removal, leading to the filing of a formal complaint with the Supreme Court of Virginia on July 10, 2017. This initiated a hearing to assess whether Judge Pomrenke engaged in misconduct, with the Commission required to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence.

The term “clear and convincing evidence” is defined as the level of proof that establishes a firm belief or conviction regarding allegations, falling between the preponderance of the evidence and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard used in criminal cases. The court does not give deference to the Commission's factual determinations. If clear and convincing evidence shows that a judge violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct, the judge may be censured or removed. 

Judge Pomrenke was charged with violating Canons 1 and 2A and 2B. Canon 1 emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary, while Canon 2 mandates that judges avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The Commission found the charges against Judge Pomrenke to be well-founded, and he admitted that his actions were wrong and violated these Canons. 

The court concluded that the Commission proved by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Pomrenke committed the alleged violations, which undermined public confidence in the judiciary. However, the Commission did not recommend a specific sanction. The preamble to the Canons underscores the essential role of an independent and competent judiciary in upholding justice and maintaining public trust in the legal system.

Public confidence in the judiciary hinges on the integrity and independence of judges, necessitating adherence to ethical Canons. Violations of these Canons erode such confidence and harm the legal system. Judge Pomrenke's actions, particularly contacting potential witnesses before his wife's trial, constituted serious breaches of ethical standards. He was aware of his wife's legal troubles, including a "target letter" and indictment, and had previously engaged with Bowman, the key figure in her employment, who was cooperating with federal investigations. Judge Pomrenke's note aimed to secure his wife's position and influence witness testimony about her honesty. His voicemail further attempted to sway a witness to provide favorable remarks about his wife. Although Judge Pomrenke suggested that censure would be an appropriate punishment due to supportive letters from attorneys, the court emphasized its disciplinary role, distinct from an appellate function. The court must weigh the severity of the violations against public confidence in judicial integrity and the trust of other government branches and judges in the Commonwealth. While personal circumstances may be considered, they are less critical than maintaining public trust and the judiciary’s integrity. Ultimately, sanctions must aim to uphold the judiciary's independence and restore faith in justice.

Disciplinary measures against judges must serve to publicly acknowledge misconduct, deter future violations, and discourage similar behavior by others. The purpose of such discipline is not retribution but to underscore the judiciary's essential role in a free society and to assure the public that judicial misconduct is unacceptable. Judge Pomrenke's attempts to improperly influence witnesses in his wife's federal trial severely undermine public confidence in the judicial system, regardless of whether his actions affected the trial's outcome. The focus is on the impact of his conduct on the integrity and reputation of the judiciary. Despite any personal circumstances, the harm to public trust necessitates his removal from the bench. The responsibility for judicial discipline lies with the judiciary itself, and it is concluded that the severity of Pomrenke's actions warrants his immediate removal from office under the Virginia Constitution.