Judge Jonathan Young Reprimanded for Sending Sexual Messages to Women Through Social Media

October 6, 2020
By: Dwayne Page

Circuit Court Judge Jonathan Young of Putnam County, a Republican who serves DeKalb and six other counties in the 13th Judicial District has received a public reprimand from the State Board of Judicial Conduct for inappropriate messages he sent to women on various social media platforms from 2015 to 2020.

Recipients of the messages include, among other persons, a legal professional employed by a law firm that conducts business in Judge Young’s court and a litigant who formerly had a child custody matter before him. The messages include content ranging from flirtatious to overtly sexual. Most of these communications depict Young in his judicial robe.

An investigative panel of the Board authorized a full investigation into this matter on August 6. The following day, August 7 Judge Young was given a notice of the panel’s decision to authorize the investigation as required by state law.

In a written response dated August 31, Judge Young acknowledged that he sent the inappropriate messages and that doing so was beneath the dignity of judicial office. According to the Chairman of the Board, Dee David Gay, Judge Young took full responsibility for his actions.

In a letter to Judge Young on October 5, Gay wrote “Judges are expected to maintain the highest standards of conduct and dignity of judicial office at all times. Thus the Code of Judicial Conduct applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. There is no exception to this principle for the use of social media”.

“Your social media activities described above run afoul of a number of ethical standards designed to maintain public trust and confidence in the judiciary. First, judges are prohibited from engaging in personal activities that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive, particularly when the recipients of those communications include former litigants and persons whose job responsibilities intersect with the court system.”

“Second, judges are prohibited from engaging in personal activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s integrity and impartiality. Here, your inappropriate use of social media has created ethical dilemmas for attorneys who litigate before you, especially in domestic relation matters. Some of these attorneys have had to seek advice from the Board of Professional Responsibility regarding their own ethical obligations to disclose to clients what they know about your activities. Also, in at least one instance, a party used this knowledge to their strategic advantage in a case. Thus, although you may have thought your social media communications were private, your activities have adversely affected the administration of justice”.

Third, a participant in a legal proceeding, especially in a domestic relations matter, who learns that the judge sent inappropriate messages to women on social media may reasonably perceive that the judge is biased or prejudiced, regardless of whether bias or prejudice actually exists. While there is nothing to suggest that you were biased or prejudiced in any case, such litigants may reasonably question whether they received impartial and unbiased treatment. It is imperative that judges conduct themselves on social media in a way that ensures litigants have no reason to believe their case was not fairly judged”.

“Fourth, judges are prohibited from engaging in personal activities that interfere with the proper performance of their duties. Sending inappropriate messages on social media may well interfere with a judge’s ability to preside over future litigation. These circumstances are a prime example, as you have had to recuse yourself in a case after a party learned of your social media activities and asked you to step aside. As this situation illustrates, it is essential that judges interact with others in a way that will not interfere with their work as judges. While judges may utilize social media, they must at all times remain conscious of the solemn duties they may later be called upon to perform”.

“Fifth, judges are required to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Inappropriate messages sent by a sitting judge to anyone, much less to those who have ties to the court system like former litigants and legal professionals, do not inspire such confidence. To the contrary, such ethical lapses erode the confidence we ask the public to place in our judges. Indeed, every time a judicial officer engages in misconduct, he or she spends the goodwill of the judiciary as a whole”.

“The investigative panel has decided to impose a public reprimand, which you have accepted. In imposing the particular sanction, the panel considered mitigation that you acknowledged the problems created by your actions, that you fully cooperated with the Disciplinary Counsel, and that you have no prior record of discipline since becoming a judge”.

“Finally, as part of this public reprimand, you have agreed to the following: (1) a suspension of thirty days, which will be held in abeyance provided there are no meritorious complaints involving prospective ethical misconduct of any type for the remainder of your current term; (2) you will refrain from using a picture of yourself in your judicial robe as a profile picture on any social media platform unless conducting court business; (3) you will complete at your own expense, either in person or online, a judicial ethics program addressing ethical issues in the context of social media on or before December 31,2020, and provide Disciplinary Counsel with a certificate of completion; (4) you will recuse yourself as a matter of course from all cases involving attorneys who will be identified separately from this letter; and (5) you will refrain from engaging in any similar misconduct while a judge”.

“In short, as you have acknowledged , your use of social media has reflected poorly on you as a jurist. The sanctions imposed today are among the most severe that can be imposed short of removal from office, and the Board trusts that it will be unnecessary to revisit these issues in the future,” wrote Gay.

October 6, 2020
By: Dwayne Page

Two tracts of land may soon be annexed into the City of Smithville.

During Monday night’s regular monthly meeting, the aldermen adopted on first reading ordinances to annex properties at the corner of Miller and Foster Road and at Highway 70 east and Colvert’s Lake Road.

Mayor Josh Miller and City Administrator Hunter Hendrixson say the property at Foster and Miller Roads belongs to Tracy Foutch and most of it is already in the city zoned for industrial use. Foutch wants the remaining 17 acres of the parcel annexed in the city.

Meanwhile the property at Highway 70 east and Colvert’s Lake Road belongs to Greg Dugdale who bought it at auction. Mayor Miller and City Administrator Hendrixson say Dugdale wants the 8 acre site to be annexed and later zoned commercial fronting Highway 70 and residential on the back side.

The aldermen will consider both annexation ordinances on second and final reading following public hearings at the next regular monthly meeting in November.

October 6, 2020
By: Dwayne Page

A Smithville man was found with drugs and a stolen handgun during a recent traffic stop.

22 year old Jere Raymond Green of South Mountain Street is charged with theft of property over $1,000; possession of a controlled substance (meth and marijuana) with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver; possession of drug paraphernalia; evading arrest; and no valid driver license. His bond is $20,000 and he will be in court October 15.

Sheriff Patrick Ray said that on October 1 a detective observed Green driving a gold GMC Yukon on West Broad Street, Smithville knowing that Green did not have a valid driver license. The detective tried to stop the vehicle but Green failed to pull over. The officer then initiated a pursuit which ended on South Mountain Street. As Green exited the vehicle he threw something into the woods. There the detective recovered a Glock 48- 9 millimeter handgun which had been reported stolen. A white bag was also found on the ground near the vehicle which contained a glass pipe along with a baggy that held a crystal like substance believed to be methamphetamine which weighed 3.75 grams and another baggy with a green leafy substance believed to be marijuana that weighed 8.84 grams. Green also had $4,755 in cash on his person which was seized as suspected proceeds from drug transactions.

Meanwhile, 30 year old Christopher Lee Cunningham of Old Blue Springs Road, Smithville is charged with theft of property over $1,000. His bond is $2,500 and he will be in court October 27.

Sheriff Ray said that on September 4 Cunningham stole various gaming consoles and games for the consoles from a residence where he was staying on Short Mountain Highway. The estimated value of the stolen items is $1,580. Cunningham sold some of it to GameXChange in McMinnville.