TOPEKA — Judge Joseph McCarville III of the 27th judicial district was appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in one case on the court's docket Monday, September 12.
After hearing oral arguments, McCarville joined Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and will continue to collaborate with them drafting a decision.
"I am pleased that Judge McCarville took time from his duties in the 27th judicial district to sit with the Supreme Court," said Chief Justice Lawton R. Nuss. "It's a great help to our court and we appreciate his contributions deliberating this case."
McCarville, who has been a district court judge since 2007, said he appreciates being asked to sit with the state's highest court.
"I am flattered that I was asked to again sit with the Supreme Court," McCarville said. "This experience reassured me of the quality of work being done by our Supreme Court justices."
Before he was a district court judge McCarville served as a district magistrate judge. Before that, he was in a private law practice for 22 years, was Reno County attorney, assistant Reno County attorney and assistant Shawnee County district attorney. He graduated from Washburn University School of Law.
All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live through the Watch Supreme Court Live! link in the right-hand column of the Kansas Judicial Branch website at www.kscourts.org. Video recordings of oral argument are available within a week in the Supreme Court's oral argument archive located at at www.kscourts.org/kansas-courts/supreme-court/archived-arguments.asp.
The case McCarville heard on Monday was:
Appeal No. 114,488: In the Matter of Timothy H. Henderson
Original Proceeding Related to Judicial Discipline: (30-day suspension) Timothy H. Henderson, district judge of the 18th judicial district, previously faced claims of sexual harassment, using the prestige of his office to advance his wife's employment, and improper ex parte communications. It was alleged that at the hearing on these claims, Henderson provided testimony that was: not candid and honest; included unfounded responses to questions posed; and, lacked probity. As a result, Henderson is now alleged to have engaged in conduct that violates Rule 1.2 of Canon 1 and Rules 2.5 and 2.16 of Canon 2 of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct.
After a public hearing, Substitute Panel B of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications concluded that Henderson's conduct violated the rules. It was the judgment of all members of the panel that Henderson's testimony in the prior case: 1) was not candid or honest; 2) lacked probity; 3) demonstrated a disregard for the judicial discipline process; and 4) was an attempt to cover the inappropriate conduct of which he was accused and was found to have committed. The panel recommended Henderson be disciplined for the violations by public censure and a 30-day suspension. One panel member recommended a more severe sanction.