MD Supreme Court details reasons for PG County judge’s removal

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court has detailed the reasons it removed a Prince George’s County circuit judge from the bench for “egregious” misconduct three months ago.

In a unanimous 102-page opinion written by Justice Shirley M. Watts and filed Thursday, the Maryland Supreme Court found April T. Ademiluyi violated numerous provisions of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, including provisions that require a judge to perform the duties of office fairly and impartially.

The high court determined that Ademiluyi failed to follow the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities’ cautionary advice that she comply with directives from judges with supervisory authority, among other advice, after repeatedly refusing to participate in new judge’s training.

The justices found Ademiluyi “plainly engaged in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to question her ability to carry out the responsibilities of her office with independence, integrity, and impartiality.”

In an email Friday, Ademiluyi rejected the Maryland Supreme Court’s findings, reiterating her argument that the entire commission must recuse themselves due to the appearance of bias, impartiality and the presence of disputed facts.

Ademiluyi has also filed a federal lawsuit against some of her former judicial colleagues, which alleges the judges retaliated against her after she filed complaints with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities against two judges for allegedly forging her signature on an order.

Ademiluyi portrays herself as a whistleblower, where she states the commission “is biased and complicit in the retaliation” towards her. She also asserts due process violations — namely “trial by ambush.”

The Maryland Supreme Court ultimately disagreed with Ademiluyi’s arguments.

The high court found Ademiluyi’s contention that the entire commission should have recused themselves to be a “bald allegation,” noting a lack of evidence indicating why a commission member’s impartiality might reasonably have been questioned.

As to Ademiluyi’s due process violations, the Maryland Supreme Court similarly found “no basis” for Ademiluyi’s contention that she has been subject to trial by ambush or rushed proceedings.

In its opinion, the Maryland Supreme Court found Ademiluyi lacked the patience, dignity, courteousness and cooperation required of a judge, with Ademiluyi’s conduct having “crossed the line into a continuous pattern of making offensive and humiliating remarks” toward her staff, as well as making disparaging remarks about judges and the judiciary to her staff.

“The Commission’s findings of fact demonstrate that Judge Ademiluyi engaged in an ‘unyielding pattern’ of making wholly inappropriate remarks to and about her staff and other judges, that she failed to cooperate with other judges in the administration of court business, and that she failed to comply with the reasonable directives of a judge with supervisory authority,” Watts wrote.

The Maryland Supreme Court similarly found that Ademiluyi refused to participate in and complete the training required for new judges, failed to cooperate with the judges in the administration of the court’s training program and demonstrated a lack of courtesy in her interactions with the judges.

Ademiluyi contended her training faced delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the opinion states.

In one instance during training, according to the opinion, Ademiluyi arrived more than one hour late, was unprepared, refused to sit in the courtroom with the training judge as required and declined to meet with the training judge afterward as requested to discuss the training.

The high court also found that Ademiluyi’s campaign conduct — where she won a surprise victory in the 2020 primary election — violated the Maryland rules when she used the words “me too” in her campaign video. The court agreed with the commission’s finding that the video and statements made in a blog post “reasonably could be perceived as conveying information that would be inconsistent with the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.”

“[C]lear and convincing evidence supports the Commission’s conclusion that, where Judge Ademiluyi previously made statements in campaign materials constituting a promise or commitment to assist victims or survivors of sexual assault offenses, her impartiality might reasonably have been questioned as the presiding judge in a case involving rape charges,” Watts wrote.

Counsel for the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities and the Maryland Judiciary declined to comment.

“Judge Ademiluyi’s removal from office was the only disposition sufficient to protect the public’s confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice,” Watts wrote. “Judge Ademiluyi’s numerous violations of the [Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct] constituted egregious misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

Ademiluyi is the fourth judge to have been removed by the high court in the Maryland Judiciary’s history.