High court upholds Gordon's removal

Oct. 21—The state Supreme Court has upheld the Judicial Conduct Commission's decision to remove Julia Hawes Gordon as Daviess Family Court judge.

In an unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court found the JCC had not erred when commissioners decided Gordon be removed as judge for violating judicial canons by using her position to attempt to influence the outcome of criminal cases involving her adult son, Dalton Gordon.

The commission made its ruling in April. Commissioners found Gordon attempted to arrange her son's release from jail by contacting County Attorney Claud Porter and District Judge Daniel "Nick" Burlew II about his cases. The JCC also found Gordon had destroyed evidence by deleting photos and items from Dalton's social media and phone.

Commissioners also ruled Gordon had retaliated against social workers in her courtroom by attempting to fine them when they didn't meet her deadlines; had conflicts of interest; had used her position to get special visitations with her son while he was incarcerated in the Daviess County Detention Center; had used her staff to administer drug tests that were compromised when staff members took the tests home; and had not been truthful with the JCC.

Gordon had argued her communications with Porter and Burlew were lawful under "Marsy's Law," the crime victim bill of rights in the state constitution. In their ruling, the Supreme Court justices wrote Gordon's communications, including meeting privately with Burlew to discuss Dalton's cases, occurred before Marsy's Law was voted on in 2020.

Even if Marsy's Law had been in effect, "Judge Gordon's actions were still impermissible under the law," the opinion says. "One of the most egregious violations occurred when she privately spoke with Judge Burlew ... and additionally she did so without the knowledge of either the prosecutor or her son's defense attorney."

Marsy's Law gives victims a role in the process, "but does not allow the victim to control the proceedings or arrange plans for a resolution," the justices wrote, noting that Gordon had "exchanged hundreds of messages" with Porter about Dalton's cases.

Burlew discussed meeting with Gordon for 45 minutes during a videotaped hearing on one of Dalton's cases. Gordon argued the tape was hearsay, but the justices ruled the statement was admissible because Burlew's statement "clearly went against his (Burlew's) interest, as judges are generally not permitted to engage in ex parte communications."

The JCC had "clear and convincing evidence" to find Gordon had exerted improper influence on Burlew and Porter, had destroyed evidence and had used her position to get special visitation with Dalton while he was in jail and bring him food, snacks and other items.

The justices also ruled there was "clear and convincing evidence" Gordon had improperly had staff administer drug tests, had a conflict of interest by allowing Clay Wilkey, who represented Dalton on some of his criminal cases, to practice as a guardian ad litem in Family Court, and had "lacked candor" with the commission.

Statements in the JCC opinion were not inflammatory, the justices wrote, because they referenced text conversations between Gordon and Wilkey about the Kentucky State Police having or seeking a phone Gordon owned that had been used by Dalton in one of their investigations.

Including those statements from the text conversations in the JCC opinion "was valid and relevant, and occurred as a consequence of the comments Judge Gordon made herself," the justices wrote.

The justices note Gordon has been admonished by the JCC before, in 2018 for inappropriate involvement in Dalton's criminal cases.

While removing a judge entirely from the bench, rather than suspending them, is difficult, "the severity of removal is warranted based on the pattern and extent of misconduct in this case," the justices wrote.

The Supreme Court's ruling is not subject to appeal.

The ruling, however, does not change the status of Gordon's campaign for one of the county's two Family Court seats. Gordon is on the ballot for next month's election, where she'll face Andrew Johnson and Angela Thompson for the Family Court, Division Four seat.

Gordon could not be reached for comment for this story.