The saga of Superior Court of New Jersey Judge John F. Russo Jr. is, at long last, over. Back in 2018, we first told you about Russo, who was in hot water for some wildly inappropriate questioning of an alleged sexual assault survivor. And, the questioning was downright shocking.
As a refresher, at a hearing the defense asked the woman about the alleged assault, when Russo took over questioning and things took a turn:
RUSSO: Do you know how to stop somebody from having intercourse with you?
WOMAN: Yes.
RUSSO: How would you do that?
WOMAN: I’d probably physically harm them somehow.
RUSSO: Short of physically harming them?
WOMAN: Tell them no.
RUSSO: Tell them no. What else?
WOMAN: To stop.
RUSSO: To stop. What else?
WOMAN: And to run away or try to get away.
RUSSO: Run away, get away. Anything else?
WOMAN: I — that’s all I know.
RUSSO: Block your body parts?
WOMAN: Yeah.
RUSSO: Close your legs? Call the police? Did you do any of those things?
It was recommended by a three-judge panel that Russo be removed from office for “severe misconduct” following multiple incidents, including the “close your legs” comment. This was after the state supreme court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct also found inappropriate behavior but was split on the proper punishment.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered Russo’s removal from the bench, and they didn’t mince words in condemning Russo’s actions:
Viewed together, Respondent’s multiple acts of misconduct have lasting consequences. His pattern of misconduct and unethical behavior not only undermined the integrity of different court proceedings but also impaired his integrity and the Judiciary’s. His overall behavior reflects a lack of probity and fitness to serve as a judge. And his conduct breached the public’s trust.
It is inconceivable that Respondent could sit in judgment in domestic violence or sexual assault matters in the future. No reasonable victim could have confidence in a court system were he to preside over those kinds of cases again. Nor could any objective, informed member of the public. For the same reasons, public confidence in the integrity and independence of the Judiciary would be undermined if Respondent were to preside over other types of cases. Legitimate concerns about integrity, ethics, and public confidence extend to all areas of the Judiciary.
Good to see the Supreme Court of New Jersey got it right.
Read the full order below.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).