Electronic Document Jun 3 2024 13:24:45 2024-JP-00121-SCT Pages: 1

Serial: 252378
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

No. 2024-JP-00121-SCT

MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL

PERFORMANCE

v.

CARLOS E. MOORE, MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE

ORDER
This matter is before the undersigned Justice on the Motion for Leave to File
Corrected Brief in Support of Motion for Approval of Recommendation filed by the
Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. The undersigned Justice finds that the
motion should be granted and that the brief should be accepted for filing.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Corrected Brief
in Support of Motion for Approval of Recommendation filed by the Mississippi
Commission on Judicial Performance is granted.
SO ORDERED.

DIGITAL SIGNATURE
Order#: 252378
Sig Serial: 100008747
Org: SC
Date: 06/03/2024 Leslie D. King, Presiding Just1
 JUN 03 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COUfff
COURT OF APPEALS
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE l'ETITIONER

V. NO. 2024-JP-00121-SCT

CARLOS MOORE
MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE RESPONDENT

BRIEF .IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AJ>PROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION

FILED BY THE MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

REPRESENTING THE COMMISSION:

Rachel L. Wilson, Esq.

Missfs$ippi Bar No.100043
Wilson@incojp.ms.gov
AshJey May, Esq.
Mississippi Bar No.100027
May@mcoip.ms.gov

Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance

660 North Street, Suite 104
Jaekson, Mississippi 39202

Telephone: (601) 359-1273

Facsimile: (ti0,l) 35.4-6277
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authodties..•..•....•............................................ , ... -ii-

Other A.uthorities .•......................•................................... , . -iii-

Statement of the .Issues· ...........................• ................................. 1

Statement of the Case ............................................................. 2

Statement of the.Facts ....· .............................................., . ·•....... .3

Summary o_f the Argument ............................................ ,.....• ........ ,6

ARGUMENT I
JUDGE MOORE'S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES WILLFUL MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE AND
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WHICH BRINGS
THE JUDICIAL OFFICE INTO DISREPUTE PURSUANT TO SECTION 177A OF THE
MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890, AS AMENDED.................•............. 6

ARGUMENTII
JUDGE MOORE SHOULD BEPUBL!CLY REPRIMANDED, REMOVED FROM OFFICE;
SUSPENDED FOR SIX (6) YEARS, AND FINED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00),
BY THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT PURSUANT TO SECTION 177A OF THE
MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION....................................................................... 11

Conclusion... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ............................... 17

Certificate of Service........................................................... 19

-i-
 · TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

I. CASES

In Re Anderson, 451 So. 2d 232 (Miss. 1984), ............................ , ........... 7

In Re Bell, 962 So. 2d 537 (Miss. 2007), ................................... ,. ........ 8

In Re Quick, 553 So. 2d 522 {Miss. 1989), ....................................... 6, 7, 8

Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boland, 975 So. 2d 882 (Miss. 2008), ................ 12

Miss. ·Comm 'n on Judicial Performance v. Boone, 60 So. 3d 172 (Miss. 2011 ), ............. .3

Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bowen, 123 So. 3d 381 (Miss. 2013), ............7

Miss. Comm'n on.Judicial Performa11ce v..Boykin, 763 So. 2d 872 (Miss. 2000), .......... .12

Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Clinkscales, 192 So. 3d 997 (Miss. 2016), ......•.. .14

Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Fowlkes, 121 So. 3d 904 (Miss. 2013), ........ 7, 8
Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gibson, 883 So. 2d 115 {Miss. 2004), .........3, 7

Miss. Comm'n onJudicial Pe,formance v. Harris, 131 So. 3d 1137 (Miss. 2013), .... 6, 7, 8, 12

Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Hartzog, 32 So. 3d 1188 (Miss. 2010), ........... 7

Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performa,ice v. Moore, 356 So. 3d 122 (Miss. 2023),., ................5

Miss. Comm',a on Judicial Performance v. Osbome, 876 So. 2d 324 (Miss. 2004), ......... 11

Miss. Comm'n onJudicialPerformance v. Osborne, 11 So. 3d 307 (Miss. 2009) ............... .13

Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Patton, 57 So. 3d 626 (Miss. 2011), .............. .14

Miss; .Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Sanford, 941 So. 2d 209 (Miss. 2006) ........... 7

Miss. Comm'n on JudicalPerformancev. Skimier, 119 So. 3d294 {Miss. 2013), ......... .12, 16

-i-
IL OTHER AUTHORITIES

The Constitution of the State of Mississippi of 1890

Article 6, Section 177-A.......................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18

Code of Judicial Conduct

Preamble .......................................................... 8

Canon 1 ..... ,. .......................• ...................... 2, 6, 8, l 0

Canon 2 ................................................... 2, 6, R, 9, 10

Canon 3 ..............................................2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16

Canon4 ...............................................2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11

-ii-
 IN THE. SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI COM~USSION ON
JUDICIAL P~RFORMANCE PETITIONER

V. Cause No. 2024-JP-00121-SCT

CARLOS MOORE
MUJ\.1CIPAL COURT JUDGE RESPONDENT

.BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL

OF RECOMMENDATION FILED BY THE
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

Pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended, on.January

30, 2024 the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance ("Commission") filed with the

Mississippi Supreme hs Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation that Carlos

Moore ("J11dge Moore"), Mlµl.l.cipal Court Judge, City of Gr.enada and City of Clarksdale, State of

Mississippi be publicly reprin1anded, removed from office, suspended for six (6) years, and fined

five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The Commission has filed a Motion for Approval of

Recommendation and submits this Memorandum Brief in support thereof.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Judge Moore's conduct constitutes willful misconduct in office and conduct

prejudicial to the administration ofjustice which brings the judicial office into disrepute pursuant

to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended.

2. Judge Moore should be publicly reprimanded, removed from office, suspended for

(6) years; and f'ined five ~ous~d dollars ($5,000.00).

Page 1 of 19
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On April 8, 2022, at its regularly scheduled meeting, the Commission found probable cause

to file a Formal Complaint against Judge Moore in Inqt1iry Concerning a Judge No. 2021 . .322.

On July 15, 2022, the Commission filed a Formal Complaint charging Judge :Mooi;e with

judicial misconduct, violating Canons 1, 2A, 3B(S), 3B(9), and 4A of the Code of Judicial Conduct

of Mississippi iudges and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890.

Judge Moore did not file an Answer to the Formal Complaint. Rule 8A of the Rules on

Commission on Judicial Performance states '"At the date set for the fo1mal hearing, the hearing

shall proceed whether or not the judge has filed an answer, and whether or not he appears in 'person

or through counsel. The failure of the judge to answer or appear may be taken as evidence of the

facts alleged in the formal complaint.'' (Emphasis added,)

On November 30, 2022 the Commission sent Respondent, through his counsel, the

Commission's First Set oflnterrogatories, Requests for Production; andRequest,s for Admissions.

Respondent did not Answer the Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for

Admissions or Object to same. Under Rule 36 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, each

matter of which an admission is requested is admitted W1less a timely answer or objection is made.

On May 31, 2023, an Order Setting Cause for Hearing, with a September 22, 2023 hearing

date, was issued.

On September 18, 2023, Respondent filed a Motion to Continue. The Commission filed

a11 Objection on the same day.

On September 19, 2023, Presiding Member Judge Kent McDaniel denied the Motion to

Continue.

Page2of19
 On September 20, 2023, Presiding Member Judge Kent McDaniel signed an Agreed Ordelr

granting a hearing on the merits by written submission.

On September 22, 2023, Judge Moore filed his Respondent's Case-in-Chief and Sworn

Written Submission in Lieu of Hearing on the Merits.

On September 29, 2023, Commission filed its Final Response.

On November 9, 2023, the fully executed Committee Recommendation was received by

the Commission.

On December 8, 2023, the Commission voted to approve the Committee Recommendation

with a unanimous vote. The Commission rendered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and

RetommendatiortJor a public reprimand, removal from office, suspension for six (6) years, and a

five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) fine.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Based upon the pleadings, discovery, and stipulated trial exhibits, and after considering

Judge Moore's history with the Commission and other factors delineated in 1Y.fiss. Comni'n on

Judicial Performance v. Gibson, 883 So. 2d 1155, 1158, ,r 13 (Miss. Z004), overruled in part on

other grounds by Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boone, 60 So. 3d 172, 177, ,r 11

(Miss.2011), as modified by Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Skinner, 119 So. 3d 294,

306, ,r 30 (Miss. 2013), the Commission found the following by clear and convincing evidence, to

wit:

Jurisdiction

The Commission is a body created pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi

Constitution of 1890, as amended. Judge Moore is now and was at all times complained of in

Page3of19
Inquiry Concerning-a Judge No. 2021.-322,. a Municipal Court Judge in Mississippi.

.Despite-only being on the bench a little over six (~ years, Respondent has already amassed

multiple violations ofthe Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges and Section 1'77A of the

Missisl!!ippi Co~titution of 1:890.

In December of2019/Respondentwas sent a letter, from the Commission regardip.g posted
information on his social media platform on open cases heard in his court in violation of Canon

38(9). The letter instructed him that the Canons prohibit judges from commenting publicly on

_pen4.i.ng or impeqding cases in @Y coun. that could ~ th~ outcome or its fairness and that~

should refrain from this conduct in the future.

InDec:ember of 2020, Respondent entered into·a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU

l) as a l'CSult of his continued ·use of social media. In MOU l, Resp0.ndent acknowledged bis
vic,lations of the Code of Judicial Cond1,1Ct. Specifically, he acknowledged that he had Facebook

a.I1d Twitter 1_1e<:oun,:s using the name "Judge Carlos Moore'' where he regularly posted political

endorsements and advertisements for his law firm and agreed to accept a private reprimand.

Respondent agreed that the ,posts vi'.olated the Canons and agreed to take all reasonable and

ne~sa.ry steps to ensure that his posts on social media do not lend the prestige of his office to

aqv~ce the private interests of ·his non-judicial activities. Specificaliy, Respondent agreed to

remove any posts from his government efficial Facebook page that did not involve coim businesli

and.only post useful information regarding.the court. Respondent also agreed not to post personal
interests·. The MOU 1 did not preclude posts on judicial news, commentary, historical and current

I These type letters are commonly referred to .as "Do Right Letters;"
Page4of19
judicial events.i, Respondent was privately reprimanded for the behavior listed in this action.

In Februa:,ry of 2022, Respondent entered info a,second Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU 2) acknowledging his violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct by using his judicial

positj.on in hi~ mistreatment oflaw en.f<>~ment officers in a case he was handling as an attorney.,

R~spo1tdent e,;gr~ed his b~®vipr warrant~d a public reprbn~ct ai,d fine. Se~ Miss. Col)Un ~n on.

Judicial Perfortna11ce, v. Moore, 356 So. 3d 122 (Miss. 2023).

In the instant case, despite clearly being put on notice,. acknowledging his violative:

b¢liavior and ;;:tgreeiilg to stop posting prohibited information on social media,, Respondent

,9ontii)ued tQ do sp.l Despite all efforts to instruct and rehabilitate, in November of 2021,

Respondent posted on social media under the account name "Judge Carlos Moore" :regarding the

Kyle Rittenhouse acquittals. Specifically he stated:

If anyone still believes justice is blind in America afterthe Kyle Rittenhouse

acq:uiw.11$ yesterday, you Just refu;st1 'to acicept an U:g)y tn,lth. I can. alm9st guarantee

yo-µ thatif kyle had been black and killed two white men in the same manner Kyle

did, he most certainly would have been convicted. There tra,s never been a greater

·need. for black lawyers and judges in America to keep decrying the blatant
inequities that exist in our criminal justice system and to keep pushing for a color

hlin,d and m<)re ~uitable judicial system.

IhAprH of 2023, on the "1udge Carlos Moore" page, Respondent posted infonnation about

a defendant who appeared before him that v:ery day and outlined the conditions she must meet for

2 These type posts are specifically allowed by Canon 4B of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
3 Some prohibited posts were made under the name "Judge Carlos Moore."
Page 5 of 19
him to dismiss her charge, conditions that were not yet met, on a case that was then pending. The

violations of the MOUl and his continued disregard for the Code ofJudicial Conduct is the matter

before this Court.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Judge Moore's actions violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(5), 3B(9), and 4A of the Codeof Judicial

Conduct of Mississippi Judges and Section 177 A of the Mississippi Constitution qf 1890. Judge

Moore's actions constitute willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute as defined by this Court.

Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Harris, 131 So. 3d 1137; 11421 l4 (Miss. 2013)

(quoting In Re Q11ick, 553 So. 2d 522, 524~25 (Miss. 1989)).

Pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended, Judge

Moore should be publicly reprimanded, removed from office, suspended from all judicial offices

for six (6) years and fined five thousand dollars ($5,00.00). This sanction is consistent. with like

cases; fits the ,offense and satisfies the purpose of sanctions.

ARGUMENT

I. JUDGE MOORE'S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES

WILLFUL MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE AND CONDUCT
PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE WHICH BRINGS THE JUDICIAL OFFICE
lNTO DISREPUTE PURSUANT TO SECTION l77A OF
THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890, AS
At\1ENDED.

This Court must first decide whether Judge Moore's conduct constitutes \½llful misconduct

in office a:nd conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice w~ch brings the judicial office

into disrepute pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended. If

Page 6 of 19
the Court determines Judge Moore's conduct constitutes willful misconduct in office, then the

Court must determine the appropriate sanction. The Court has consistently held that willful

misconduct in office is:

"the improper or wrong use of power of [her] office by a judge acting

intentionally or with gross unconcern for [her] conduct and generally .in bad
faith. It involved more than an error ofjudgment or a [mere] act of diligence.
Necessarily, the. term would encompass conduct involving moral turpitude,
dishonesty, or corruption. and also any knowing misuse of the office,
whatever the motive. However, these elements are not necessary to a
finding of bad faith. A specific intent to use the powers ofjudicial office to
accomplish a purpose which the judge knew or should have known was
beyond the legitimate exercise of [her] authority constituted bad faith ....

Willful misconduct in office of necessity is conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute.
However, a judge may also, through negligence or ignorance fiot amounting
to bad faith, behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice
so as to bring the Judicial office into disrepute."

Harris, 131 So. 3d at 1142, ,r 14 (quoting Quick, 553 So.2dat524,..25);Miss. Cotnm'n Ofl J11didal

Perf.ormance v. Bowen, 123 So. 3d 381, 384, ,i 7 (Miss. 2013); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial

Petformatice v. Sanford, 941 So. 2d 209, 212-13, ,r 7 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Gibson, 883 So. 2d

at l 157~ ,r· 5). "[A]ctual willfulness is not always required, as a judge's negligence or ignorance
not amounting to bad faith can have the same effect of being prejudicial to the administration of

justjce and bringing the judicial office into disrepute." Miss. Comm 'n on J u.dicial Performance

v. Fowlkes, 121 So. 3d .904, 907, , 5 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Miss. Comm'n on Judicial

Perfor'mance v. Hartzog, 32 So. 3d 1188, 1193, ,i 12 (Miss. 2010) (quoting In re Anderso.n, 451

So. 2d 232, 234 (Miss. 1984)). "[M]isconduct does not have to be embedded in any form of bad

behavior, ignorance and incompetence can amount to conduct that violates Section l 77A of the

Mississippi Constitution." Harris; 131 SQ. 3d at 1142, ,i 14 (quoting Quick, 553 So. 2d at 527).

Page 7 ofl9
"Violations of Canons of the Code of Judiciai Conduct can amount to a violation,of Section 177A

of the Mississippi Constitution, where (the judge's] actions [constitute] willful misconduct in

office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into

disrepute." Fowlkes, 121 So. 3d at 907, 15.

According to its Preamble, the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct . . . establishes

standards of ethical conduct ofjudges. In Re Bell, 962 So. 2d 537, 542,I 16 (Miss. 2007) (citations

omitted). The Preamble states, in pertinentpart:

The text ofthe Canons and Sections is intended to govern conduct of judges and to
be binding upon them. It is not intended, however, that every transgression will
result in disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the
degree of discipline to be imposed, should be determined through a reasonabl~ and
reasoned application of the text and should depend on such factors as the
of
seriousness the transgression, whether there is a pattern of improper activity and.
the effect of the improper activity on others or on thejudicial system.

The Code of Judicial Conduct is not intended as an.exhaustive guide for the conduct
of judges. They should also be governed in their judicial and personal conduct by
general ethical standards. The Code is intended, however, to state basic standards
which should govern the conduct of all judges and to provide guidance to assist
judges in establishing and maintaining high standards of judicial and personal
conduct.

Miss. Code of Judicial Conduct, pmbl. (2019). The Commission found that by ~ngaging in the

above ·stated conduct, Judge Moore violated Canons Canons 1, 2A, 3B(5), 3B(9), and 4A of the

Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges. Those Canons state, in pertinent part:

CANON f
A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in oµr society.

A judge shall participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high starldards
of conduct, and shall personally observe· those standards so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary is preserved. The provisions of this Code should be
construed and applied to further that objective.

Page 8 of 19
CANON2
A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All
Activities ·

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.

QANON3
A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

B. Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall
not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or
prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, gender,
religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic ::itatus,
and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction
and control to do so. A judge shall refrain from speech, gestures or other conduct
that could ~easonably be perceived as sexual harassment and shall require the same.
standard of conduct of others subject to the judge's direction and control.

(9) A juqge shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court,
make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome
or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially
interfere with a fair trial or hearing. The judge .shall require similar abstention on
the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This Section
does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their
official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court.
This Section does not apply to proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a
personal capacity.

CANON4
A Judge Shall So Conduct the Judge's Extra-judicial Activities as to Minimize
the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Obligations

A. Extra-judicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct ail of the judge's

extra-judicial activities so that they do not:

(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a

judge;
(2) demean the judicial office; or

Page 9 of 19
 (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.

Jl;/iss Code. of Jr,dicial C011duct, Canons 1, 2A, 38(5), 3B(9), and 4A (2022).

Canon 1 of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct (hereinafter "Code") requires that

Respondent participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct.

Respondent qonsistently violated this over his tenute as a municipal judge, His disregard of the

Can9ns, of warnings by the Commission, and of his specific agreement to refrain from actions

similar to those before the Court today violates this Canon.

Canon 2A of the Code requires that Respondent comply with the law and act.at all times

in a manner that promotes public confidence in th.e integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Judge

Moore diminished the public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by

piaking racially charged comments, utilizing his social media platforms titled ''Judge Carlps

Moore'\ violating an agreed MOU, and posting about pending cases before him violates Canon

2A.

Canon 38(5) of the Code requires a judge to perform judicial duties without bias or·

prejudice including bias or prejudice based upon race. Judge Moore violated this when making

racially charged statements while representing himself as a judge.

Canon 3B(9) ofthe Code prohibits a judge~ while a proceeding is pending or impending in

any cpurt, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or

impair its fa,imess or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere With a fair

trial .Or' hearing. Judge Moore v,iolated this when po~ting about a pending case before him on bis

social media accounts titled ''Judge Carlos Moore".

PageiO of19
 Canon 4A ofthe Code requires a judge to conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities

so that they do not: cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge,

demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. Judge

Moore's actions demeaned his judicial office, casted doubt on his ability to act impartially, and

interfered with tile proper performance of his judicial duties.

By authority of § 177A of the Constitution, sanctions including removal from office,

st1spension, fine or public censure or reprimand may be imposed for "willful misconduct in office

... (or) for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into

disrepute.'' A judge may run afoul of§ 177A as a result of negligence or ignorance, without bad

faith. Mississippi Comm'n fJn Judicial Peiformance v. Osborne, 876 So. 2d 324, 327 (Miss.

2004).

.II. JUDGE MOORE SHOULD BE PUBLICLY

REPRIMAl"\fDED, REMOVED FROM OFFICE,
SUSPENDED FROM ALL JUDICIAL OFFICES FOR SIX
(6) YEARS AND FINED FIVE THOUSAND OOLLARS
(5,000.00), BY Tfffi MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 177A OF THE MISSISSIPPI
CONSTITUTION.

The authority to discipline judges for misconduct is fQund in the Mississippi Constitution.

Section 177A states, in pertinent part:

On recommendation of the commission on judicial performance, the Suprerne

Court may r:emove from office, suspend, fine or publicly censure or reprimand any
justice or judge of this state for: (a) actual conviction of a felony in a court other
than a court of the State of Mississippi; (b) willful misconduct in office; (c) willful
and persistent failure to perform his duties; (d) habitual intemperance in the use of
alcohol or other drugs; or (e) conduct prejudidal to the administration of justice
whkh :brings the judicial office into disrepute.

Miss. Const. art. 6, 177A.

Page 11 of19
In dete1mining the appropriate sanctions, this Court has held:

The sanctions in judicial misconduct cases should be proportionate to the judge's

offense. To determine whether the recommended sanctions are proportionate to the
offense, this Court follows a six-factor test, which includes: (l) the bmgth and
character ofjudge's public service; (2) whether there is any prior case law on point;
(3) the magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered; (4) whether the misconduct
is an isolated incident or evidences a pattern of .conduct;(5) whether the conduct
was willful, intended to deprive the public of assets, or if it exploited the judge's
position; and (6) the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating factors.

Harris, Bl So. 3d at 1144 (citing Miss. Comm 'n on Judicial Peiformance v. Boykin, 763 So. 2d

872, 876 (Miss. 2000); Skinner, 119 So.3d at 300,307).

(1) The length and character of judge's public service

Respondent was appointed Municipal Judge for the City of Clarks<iale, Mississippi in Juiy

of 2017. In May of 2020, Respondent was named Municipal Judge for the City of Grenada.

During his six (6) years as a Municipal Judge, Respondent was 1) sent an informal corrective letter

regarding posting about cases pending before him on social media; 2) issued a private

admonishment for political posts on social media: under the name "Judge Carlos Moore"; and 3)

issued a public reprimand for utilizing his judicial office to summon and embarrass law

enforcement officers in his courtroom on a case where he was acting as a private attorney. In

addition to Respondent's history of violEt.tions of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi

Judges and Section 177A ofthe,Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Respondent's repeated disregard

for ethical boundaries is evidenced by public sanctions from State Bars.

(2) Whether there is any prior case law on point

The Mississippi Supreme Court has addressed judges making racially charged statements

before. In M.iss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boland, 975 So. 2d 882 (Miss. 2008),

witnesses heard Judge Boland saying African-Americans could go to hell. Judge Boland

Page 12 of19
appeared to make these type statements specifically about the African-American officials in

attendance at the conference she was attending as well as A:frican-Amedcan officials in Hinds

County. In Miss. Comm 'n on Judicial Performance v. Osborne, 11 So. 3d 107 (Miss. 2009),

Judge Osborne was quoted as saying "White folks don't praise you unless you're a damn fool.

Unless they think they can use you. lf you have your own mind and know what you're doing,

they don't w~nt yoµ around." The Court found that both Judge Boland and Judge Osborne had

violated judicial. canons and .the Mississippi Constitution with their racially charged language.

the language used by Judge Osborne is similar to the language Judge Moore used in his

November of 2021 social media post on the ''Judge Carlos Moore" account: ;'I can almost

guarantee you that if Kyle had been black and killed two white men in the same manner Kyle did,

he most certainly would have been convicted. There has .never been a greater need for black

lawyers and judges -in America to keep decrying the blatant inequities that exist in our criminal

justice system and to keep pushing for a color blind and niore equitable judicial system.'' The

<:::ntirety of the ·pos~ is quoted here. It included no discussion of the evidence, only statements

regarding race.

Jenevein v. Willi111, 493 F. 3d 551 (5 th Cir. 2007) does not relate to disparaging racial

remarks but does uphold a censure for remarks made while in a courtroom and wearing a robe.

Judge Moore may not have been wearing a robe or in hjs courtroom while making these comments,

but he was certainly holding himself out to be a judge.

There are plenty of other cases, including Respondent's own prior public reprimand,

regarding utilization of a judicial position to fut1her a judge's personal interest, but only a limited

Page 13 of 19
number of cases about the use of social media or statements to the press.◄ In Miss. Comm 'n on

Judicial Performance v..Clinkscales, 192 So. 3d 997 (Miss. 2016), Jxidge Clinkscales utilized her

social media to endorse a political candidate, and gave deceptive responses in a newspaper
interview. She was found to have violated the judicial canons and the Mississippi Constitution.

In Mis$. Comm'n on J11dicial Performance v. Patton, 51 So. 3d 626, (Miss. 2011 ), Patton

made ~omments to the local newspaper in an attempt to f;}Xplain his judicial actions and justify a

deiendant1 sincarceration.$ The Court upheld a public reprimand, suspension, and fine.

(3) The magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered

Respondent made disparaging insults, that were racially divisive, utilizing his position as

a judge and publicly commented abQut a pending case before hbn.. Current c'ultuntl climate

recognizes the importa.nce of racial equaiity and unity. Blasting raci~ly disparaging divisiv~

comments to the world wide web renders anyone who reads Judge Carlos Moore's comments his

targetandsuffererofharm. His comments put the general public in doubtofthe impartiality ofthe

Mississippi judiciary, specifically Judge Moore himself.

(4) Whether the mis~omluct is ~n isolated incident or evidences a pattern of condu~t

"Respondent has been disciplined by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance,

the Mississippi Bar, and the Tennessee Bar. Please see the timeline below.

5/2019 Public Reprimand from Tennessee

9/20.19 Pµblic Repritnand from the Mississippi Bar

1212019 Commission Do Right Letter

4 This is likely in part to the relatiyely recent birth of social media.

5 Footnote number 10 indicated that the record did not contain facts supporting the public comment but a brief filed
referencing it which the Court considered unrcburted (and agreed to) assertions.
Page 14 of19
12/2020 Private Reprimand over Respondent's use of social media - Respondent agreed

his actions constituted misconduct and agreed to corrective measures but did not tim,ely do so.

4/2022 Public Reprimand over Respondent's use of his judicial position to further his

personal law practice.

\\'bile he certainly has a pattern of sanctions, Judge Moore also has a pattern of similar

actions that led t◊ this case. The Commission letter in December of 2019 admonished him to

refrain from discussing his pending cases on social media. He did so again in the case before

the court. The private reprimand issued in December of 2020 involved the use of his social

media platforms titled "Judge Carlos Moore" to further his personal interests instead of

allowablejudicial information. Judge Moore continued to utilize social.media platforms titled

"Judge Carlos Moore" to further his personal interests in the case currently before the COUlt. In

addition to making racially charged remarks on his social media account titled "Judge Carlos

Moore", he made racially ch~ged remarks, in June of 2022 on national television, stating "There

are many judges that don't look like me and the people that appear before them. Tlzey can not

be empathetic because they don't look like tlie people that go before them but I preside over

two jurisdictions where there are African~Americans, 85/90% of people look like me, and I wimt

to give tltem a second chance if they qualify." (https://v:vv\v.nbc.com/th.e-kellv-darkson-

sho w /video/miss issiop i-i uclge- ui ves-voung-o ffenders-second-c hances-thru-du-better-asap-

program/ACCN563397925) (Emphasis added.) There isn'tasingle co.unt in the current case

that is an isolated incident.

(5) Whether the conduct was willful, in,tended to deprive the public of assets, o:r ifit

exploit~d the judge's position

Page 15 of 19
 ln jettisoning the former "moral turpitude" factor and substituting this factor in its place,

the Supreme Court said:

In examining the extent to which the conduct was willful, we will examine
"whether the judge acted in bad faith, good faith, intentionally, lrnowingly, or
negligently." In re Coffey's Case, 157 N.H. 156. 949 A.2d l02, '115
(2008) (quoting AJS Study). "[M]isconduct that is the result of deliberation is
generally more serious than that of a spontaneous nature." In re Coffey's Case1 949
A.2d at l l 5-l 6. For example, spontaneous conduct, such as provoked conduct,
may fall on one end of the spectrum, and may indicate a lesser sanction. Planned,
premeditated conduct may fa11 on the opposite end of the spectrum, indicating the
appropriateness of a harsher sanction. Conduct that is knowing and/or deliberate,
but not the result of premeditation, may fall behveen spontaneous and premeditated
conduct.

Miss. Comm ',i on Judicial Perjorma,ice v. Skinner, 119 So. 3d at 306-07.

The Respondent's intentional use of his "Judge Carlos Moore" social media accounts

clearly exploited his judicial position. Further, he was on The Kelly Clarkson Show specifically

to discuss hisjudicial role when he made racially disparaging insults, that were racially divisive.

Respondent previously signed MOU 1 acknowledging misconduct and agreeing to stop utilizing

his "Judge Carlos Moore" social media accounts in an inappropriate manner.

(6) The presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating factors

There are a plethora of aggravating factors here, the overall theme of which is a complete

disregard for the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct, the Commission., and the Mississippi

Supreme Court. Despite previously agreeing these actions constitute misconduct, Respondent is

now asserting his actions are not misconduct.

Respondent was warned to stop publicly discussing pending cases before him on social

media in violation on Canon 3B(9). He continued to do so. In December 2020, Respondent

Page 16 of 19
agreed to change the name of his social media and/or remove inappropriate content.6 He did not

do so until after July of 2022, after this Complaint was filed against him. The Miss.issippi

Supreme CQurt has multiple cases holding that racially disparaging remarks are a violation of the

Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct Respondent still made such comments. Respondent was

ordereg to atten4 and receive a .Public Reprimand.in botl;t Coahoma C9unty and ()renad,a County.

Respondent ~ppeared in Coab.oma County, but Respondent only appeared in Grenada County after

th.e judge contacted him and ordered his appearance. He appeared late and dressed in blue jeans;.

Respondent chose not.to participate in this case until .the eve of trial and that was to request:a delay.

The Commission gjlve Respondent instruction and multiple opportunities. He has

squandered each of them. He has agreed that he violated the Code Qf Judicial Conduct and
accepted increasingly severe discipline - until now. Now he says that he ls "before the

Commission ·because of comments he made ~ if made by other Judges would not have risen to thls

level.,, Now·he chooses more.racially divisive assertions based on no evidence whatsoever. His

repeated &cti_ons have risen to this level.

CONCLUSION

The Commission submits that the misconduct of Carlos Moore, Municipal Court Judge of
Grenada and, Municipal Court Judge of Clarksdale, Missi~ippi, constitutes willful ;misconduct in

office and cqrtdu.ct prejuclicial to the administration of justice·which brings the judicial office into

disrepute in violation of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of J 890, 8$. amended. The

Commission submits that this Court should grant the Motion for Approval of Recommendation

and that Judge Moote should be publicly reprimanded, removed from office, suspended for six (6)

6 MOU I was intended to preventhlm from lending the prestige of.his office to further his personal interest.
"Page 17 ofl9
years, and fined five thou~and·dp'llars ($5,QOO.OO), pursuant to Section 177A oftbe Mississippi
Constirution.

Respectfully submitted this tb,e 12th day of April, 2024.

MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

/s/ Ashlev May

By: Ashley May,· Senior Staff Attorney

R,achel L. Wilsqn, MSB# 100043

Ashley May, MSB# l 00027
Mississippi Gommission on Judicial Performance
660 North Stre~ Suite 104
Jackson, Mississippi 39202
Telephone: (601) 359-1273
may@mcojp.ms.~ov

Page 18 ofl9
 CERnFICATE OF SERV!CE

In compliance with Rule 25(d) of the.Mississippi ·Rules of Appellate Procedure, I, Ashley

May, Senior Staff Attomey for the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, do hereby

certify that I have this date- electr9:nically filed the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion For

ApprQ:Val of Recommendation Filed By The Mississippi Commission .on Ju<i.icial Performance

with. the Clerk Q(tbe Supreme Court ofMississippi using th~ MEC sy~m which sent no~qation
to the follow.irig:

Terris C. Harris
The Cochran Firm-Jackson
198 CharmantPlace, Suite 2
Ridgelan.~ MS 3-9157
thards(i~cochranfirn1.col1l

Further,, I hereby certify that I .have hand delivered the document to "the following

participant$:

Ryan.Bruhl
C~nnmission Chairman
660 North Street, Suite 104
Jackson, Mi~sissippi 39202

This the 12th day of April, 2024.

Isl Ashley M@Y _

.Ashley May

Page 19 of19