Judge Russo faces hearing on charges he asked alleged rape victim if she kept legs closed

Kathleen Hopkins | Asbury Park Press

Show Caption Hide Caption Judge Russo battles Ocean County assignment Judge Ford Superior Court Judge John F. Russo filed suit against Ocean County Assignment Judge Marlene Lynch Ford after she barred him from judicial duties until he passes a psychological evaluation.

TRENTON – Ocean County Superior Court Judge John F. Russo, barred from hearing cases since 2017, after being accused of throwing a file at his law clerk, will have his day in court on charges he behaved badly on the bench.



Russo, who since May 2017 has been on paid administrative leave from his $165,000-a-year position, will have a hearing Wednesday on charges that he violated the state’s code of judicial conduct by, among other things, asking an alleged rape victim if she tried to prevent the attack by keeping her legs closed.

The hearing is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. before the state Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. It will be held in the Supreme Court courtroom in the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex here.



Russo, a former mayor of Toms River and the son of the late former state Sen. John Russo Sr., faces four charges that he violated the code of judicial conduct.

One of the charges alleges that Russo was discourteous to and mistreated an alleged rape victim who was seeking a restraining order by asking her, among other questions, if she kept her legs closed.



Another charge alleges Russo attempted to use his position as a judge to influence the scheduling of a personal legal matter in Burlington County.



A third charge alleges he failed to recuse himself in a spousal support matter involving a couple with whom he acknowledged having a personal relationship.



The fourth charge alleges he improperly had communications with only one of two parties to a paternity matter he presided over.

Russo denies each of the allegations.



His attorneys, David F. Corrigan and Amelia Carolla, in a written answer to the complaint filed against Russo in March by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, said Russo was “consistently dignified, courteous and impartial to those he dealt with in a judicial capacity.’’ But they also said Russo was at a disadvantage to defend himself against the charges because he has been barred from the Ocean County Courthouse and has no access to his files, notes and other documentation that could refresh his recollection of the events.



The advisory committee’s complaint was filed about 11 months after Superior Court Judge Marlene Lynch Ford, Ocean County’s assignment judge, barred Russo from his judicial duties in April 2017 after he refused to consent to a mental-health evaluation.



Ford publicly revealed her reasons for the action about six months later in a court filing responding to a motion in a federal lawsuit Russo filed against her and another judge after his ouster from the courthouse.



In her October 2017 court filing, Ford made reference to an incident in which Russo is alleged to have asked a victim claiming she was sexually assaulted if she tried to prevent it by keeping her legs closed.

Ford went on to detail other alleged behavior by Russo, not contained in the advisory committee’s complaint, which she said led to her barring him from his judicial duties until he passed a mental health evaluation.



Ford’s court filing, which was later sealed, included allegations of physical aggression, racism, sexism and bizarre behavior, most of which are not related to the charges that will be the subject of the judicial advisory committee’s hearing.

“There have been several incidents in which Judge Russo made threatening or bizarre statements; exhibited explosive fits of rage; lacked appropriate courtroom demeanor or reasonable legal competence in the field of law assigned him and otherwise exhibited extreme emotional immaturity,’’ Ford wrote in her certification filed in federal court in Trenton. It was in response to Russo’s failed motion for an order allowing him to attend judicial college in November 2017.



Among allegations in Ford’s certification was that Russo had asked his law clerk, who is Haitian-American, if all the children in her family are from the same father and if she felt “colonized.’’



The law clerk also alleged that Russo invaded her personal space to the point where she had to rearrange chairs around her desk to create a barrier and force him to keep his distance, according to Ford’s certification.



Russo’s alleged offensive behavior even included having a picture of a “poop emoji’’ hanging in his chambers, which Ford said in her certification she ordered removed.



The final straw that led Ford to bar Russo from the courthouse was when his law clerk reported that Russo threw a file at her, striking her with it.



Russo responded to his removal by filing a federal workplace discrimination lawsuit naming Ford and Superior Court Judge Madelin F. Einbinder, who as presiding judge of the Family Division in Ocean County, was Russo’s immediate supervisor.



Russo claims in the lawsuit filed in April 2017 that he was discriminated against because he has a disabled son.

Proceedings on Russo’s lawsuit have been put on hold until the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct’s charges are resolved.



In his written answer to the committee’s complaint, Russo asserts that excerpts from his colloquy with the alleged sexual assault victim “do not effectively capture the essence of this matter, which occurred over three days.’’



According to the excerpts contained in the complaint, Russo asked the woman, “Do you know how to stop somebody from having intercourse with you?’’



The woman responded that she would “probably physically harm them somehow,’’ would tell them, “no,’’ and would “run away or try to get away.’’



Russo then asked her if she would “Block your body parts? …Close your legs? Call the police? Did you do any of those things?’’ according to the complaint.



The complaint alleges Russo’s questioning “was discourteous and mistreated the victim,’’ in violation of the code of judicial conduct.



Russo’s attorneys asserted in their written answer to the complaint that Russo “was caring and passionate about litigants.’’



In another charge in the complaint, the committee alleges that Russo reduced another judge’s order for payment of spousal support arrears from $10,000 to $300, while acknowledging a personal relationship with the couple and familiarity with the husband’s business.



Following the hearing, the judicial conduct committee will advise the state Supreme Court of its recommendation as to what, if any, public disciplinary action should be taken against Russo. Only the Supreme Court can publicly discipline a judge. Discipline can range from public reprimand or censure to suspension or dismissal.