Panel argues Judge Astacio committed 'serious violations of law' and should be removed

Will Cleveland | Democrat and Chronicle

Show Caption Hide Caption Leticia Astacio: Her stunning rise to City Court Judge Leticia Astacio overcame significant obstacles on her ascent to a judgeship.

The state Commission on Judicial Conduct filed a 61-page rebuttal Friday with the state Court of Appeals, outlining why Rochester City Court Judge Leticia Astacio should be removed from the bench.

In the briefing, Robert Tembeckjian, administrator for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, offers a response to the appeal Astacio and her attorneys filed in June. She argued that she should be censured, but not removed from her position.

Tembeckjian counters that Astacio "has engaged in judicial misconduct," according to the filing. He lays out a number of instances where Astacio made "discourteous, insensitive, and undignified comments from the bench."

More: Judge Leticia Astacio says she should be censured and not removed from bench in appeal

More: Judge Leticia Astacio charged with attempting to purchase weapon

More: Astacio case to go before Court of Appeals on Sept. 5

The commission calls Astacio's judgment into question. Astacio's attorney, Robert Julian, filed a 42-page appeal brief on June 14. In it, he argued that Astacio "does not deserve the career death sentence of removal."

The commission rebuttal outlines the instances in which Astacio made several statements that caused the commission to question her judgment.

Tembeckjian wrote, "(Astacio) committed serious violations of law, asserted the prestige of office in attempting to evade the consequences of her behavior, knowingly violated a condition of her sentence, failed to adhere to a lawful court order and was incarcerated, and otherwise engaged in conduct so inimical to the role of a judge as to irredeemably undermine public confidence in her remaining on the bench."

The commission's response outlines six charges against Astacio, some resulting from her misdemeanor DWI conviction, others from her alleged misconduct in court, and some from her subsequent violation of the terms of her conditional discharge.

In one instance, Astacio presided over a 2015 case from which she should have disqualified herself because of a previous attorney-client relationship. Tembeckjian also noted that Astacio used ""insensitive and undignified comments" in another case.

Astacio's case is scheduled to be heard before the state Court of Appeals on Sept. 5. Until then, she remains suspended with pay.

Astacio exercised her right to appeal the state commission’s decision in May. The commission's decision was released in April. It called for her lose her judgeship. She was elected to office in 2014 and was slated to serve a 10-year term.

In its determination, the commission cited Astacio’s conviction for a February 2016 misdemeanor drunken driving charge and subsequent failures to abide by the terms of her sentence.

The commission also noted other instances of misconduct while Astacio was presiding over cases in City Court.

Astacio has not presided over a case since her arrest, and the Court of Appeals suspended her with pay in May after she was charged with attempted criminal purchase of a weapon, a felony. That charge remains pending.

By law, judges who are the subject of a disciplinary ruling by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct can either accept the findings or appeal them to the state Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has three options: uphold the commission’s recommended punishment; reduce it; or overturn it all together and allow her to stay on the bench.

WCLEVELAND@Gannett.com