MICHELE EVANS NEWS

New York’s Top Court Takes Up Judge-Removal Fight

By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 9/16/2026

Category: Courts / Judicial Conduct / Civil Rights / Accountability

NEW YORK CITY, NY – New York’s highest court is reviewing whether a Canandaigua town justice should be removed after the state judicial-conduct commission found that he repeatedly used a racial slur and later made racially insensitive remarks following a Black defendant’s arraignment.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct voted to remove Justice Walter W. Jones in March. Jones requested review by the Court of Appeals, which suspended him with pay while the case is pending. The commission said oral argument was scheduled for September 15.

The Court of Appeals now faces a direct test of judicial accountability. It must decide whether the commission’s findings warrant removal, the most serious sanction available, or whether a lesser penalty is enough.

The commission’s 27-page determination says Jones used a racial epithet several times during an unsolicited story to a court clerk and an assistant public defender outside the Ontario County Jail in May 2024. Both witnesses said the episode left them concerned and uncomfortable. Jones argued that he was quoting his father while recounting a family story and said his intent was to convey a message about tolerance.

Five days later, Jones presided over the arraignment of a Black woman who had a badly swollen eye and told the court she needed surgery. After bail was set and the woman accused the county and the court of racism, the commission found that Jones made a remark about her invoking race after she left the courtroom.

Jones acknowledged that the remark was a mistake, according to the determination. He denied that he was biased and argued that removal was excessive. His lawyers asked for a private caution or, at most, censure.

The commission rejected that argument. It concluded that the conduct violated rules requiring judges to preserve public confidence, act impartially and avoid words or conduct that show racial bias or prejudice.

The record also shows that Jones had received two earlier caution letters. One involved directing a clerk to contact a complaining witness about restitution in a pending case. The other involved court-finance management and adjudicative delays. Neither letter was public discipline, but the commission cited them in assessing the later misconduct.

Removal proceedings are not criminal cases. The issue is not whether Jones committed a crime. The issue is whether his conduct is compatible with the standards New York places on judges who control bail, arraignments and other decisions that can change a person’s life within minutes.

That distinction matters in town and village courts, where justices often operate with limited staff but wield substantial authority. People appearing for arraignment must be able to trust that race will not shape how they are heard, treated or judged.

The Court of Appeals can accept the commission’s recommendation or impose a different sanction. Until the court rules, Jones remains suspended with pay and the removal question remains unresolved.

The case also exposes a broader accountability gap. Judicial discipline can take years, while defendants and court staff must work inside the system during the investigation. Public access to the commission’s determination, hearing record and appeal gives New Yorkers a rare view of how complaints against judges are tested.

The final ruling will answer more than whether one judge keeps his position. It will show how New York’s court system defines the line between misconduct that can be corrected and conduct that destroys public confidence in the bench.