IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
doJ ¥UP-IcfL/ PETITIONER
FILED
V. JAN 3 O2024 NO.
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT
CARLOS MOORE COURT OF APPEALS
MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE RESPONDENT

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION FILED BY

THE MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

COMES NOW, the undersigned Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance,

("Commission"), by and through its Executive Director, Rachel L. Wilson, moves the Supreme

Court of Mississippi to accept the Commission Finding~ of Fact, Conclusions of Law and

Recommendation in Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 2021-3 22 and in support thereof, would show

· as follows:

1. That pursuant to information and belief, and acting upon a complaint from Robert

Soto and the subsequent investigation thereof, the Commission filed a Formal Complaint against

Respondent in Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 2021-322 on July, 2022.

2. Respondent failed to file a Response to the Formal Complaint.

3. Thereafter, on September 20, 2023, an agreed order was signed granting a hearing

on the merits by written submission. On September 22, 2023, the Respondent filed his Case-in-

Chief and Sworn Written Submission in Lieu of Hearing on the Merits. On September 29, the

Page 1 of 4

MOTION# :Jo:J4-3,~
oi::FtCE OF THE CLERK
' SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
Commission filed its Final Response.

4. On October 20, 2023 the appointed Committee met to review and determine its

Recommendation. On November 9, 2023, the fully executed Committee Recommendation was

received.

5. 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 Recommendation on January 24, 2024. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions

of Law and Recommendation included a recommendation for a public reprimand, removal from

office, suspension, and a fine.

6. Pursuant to Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 and Rule l0A of

the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, on January 30, 2024, this matter

was filed with the Supreme Court of Mississippi for its consideration of the recommendation of

the Commission.

7. The Minutes Excerpt of the Commission vote and Commission Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law and Recommendation, as well as all other pleadings referred to herein are

contained in the record before this Court.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Commission prays that this Honorable

Court will adopt the findings of fact submitted by the Commission, and will approve the sanction

recommended to this Court by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance by publication

of an appropriate opinion, the same being a fine of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), removal from

office, suspension for six (6) years, and a public reprimand of Carlos Moore, Municipal Court

Judge, Grenada, Mississippi and Clarksdale, Mississippi by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Page 2 of 4
 Respectfully submitted this the 30th day of January, 2024.

MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

~~b
By: Ashley May, Senior Staff Attorney

Rachel L. Wilson, MSB# 100043

Ashley May, MSB# 100027
Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance
660 North Street, Suite 104
Jackson, Mississippi 39202
Telephone: (601) 359-1273
Facsimile: (601) 354-6277
may@mcojp.ms.gov

Page 3 of 4
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

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

·certify that I have this date filed the foregoing Motion for Approval of Recommendation filed by

the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of

Mississippi and sent notification to the following:

Terris C;- Harris, Esquire

tharris@cochranfirm.com
The Cochran Firm
198 Charmant Place, Suite 2
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157

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

participants:

RyanBruhl
Commission Chairman
660 North Street, Suite 104
Jackson, Mississippi 39202

This the 30th day of January, 2024.

Page 4 of 4
 ddtFI J p-; t2.J
BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE

No. 2021-322

COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with Rule 8.E. of the Rules of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial

Performance ("Commission"), the Commission considered the matters set forth below and, based

on clear and convincing evidence, the Commission recommends a public reprimand, removal,

suspension for six (6) years, and fine of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) of Carlos E. Moore,

Municipal Court Judge, City of Grenada and City of Clarksdale State of Mississippi, hereafter

referred to as the "Respondent." In support of that recommendation the Commission makes the

following :findings and conclusions:

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On April 8, 2022 at its regularly scheduled meeting, the Commission found

probable cause to file a Formal Complaint against Respondent in Inquiry Concerning a Judge No.

2021-322.

2. On July 15, 2022, the Commission filed a Formal Complaint charging Respondent

with judicial misconduct, violating Canons 1, 2A, 3B(5), 3B(9), and 4A of the Code of Judicial

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

3. Respondent did not file an Answer to the Complaint.

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

Commission's First Set oflnterrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admissions.
Page 1 of 13 Ff LED
JAN 3 0 2024
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
Respondent did not Answer the Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for

Admissions or Object to same.

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

hearing date, was issued.

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

filed an Objection on the same day.

7. On September 19, 2023, Presiding Member Judge Kent McDaniel denied the

Motion to Continue.

8. On September 20, 2023, Presiding Member Judge Kent McDaniel signed an Agreed

Order granting a hearing on the merits by written submission.

9. On September 22, 2023, Respondent filed his Case-in-Chief and Sworn Written

Submission in Lieu of Hearing on the Merits.

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

11. On October 20, 2023., the appointed Committee met to review and determine its

Recommendation. Neither party was present for the meeting.

12. On November 9, 2023, the fully executed Committee Recommendation was

received.

13. At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 8, 2023, the Commission voted to

approve the Committee Recommendation with a unanimous vote.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

JURJSDICTION

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

Page 2 of 13
 Constitution of 1890, as amended. Respondent is now and was at all times complained of in Inquiry

Concerning a Judge No. 2022-322, a Municipal Court Judge, City of Grenada, State of Mississippi

and City of Clarksdale, State of Mississippi.

STAIBMENT OF THE FACTS

15. Despite only being on the bench a little over six (6) years, Respondent has already

amassed multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges and Section

177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890.

16. In December of 2019, Respondent was sent a letter I from the Commission

regarding posted information on his social media platform on open cases heard in his court in

violation of Canon 3B(9). The letter instructed him that the Canons prohibit judges from

commenting publicly on pending or impending cases in any court, that could affect the outcome

or its fairness and that he should refrain from this conduct in the future.

17. In December of 2020, Respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding

(referred to MOU 1 for clarity) as a result of his continued use of social media. In MOU 1,

Respondent acknowledged his violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Specifically, he

acknowledged that he had Facebook and Twitter accounts using the name "Judge Carlos Moore"

where he regularly posted political endorsements and advertisements for his law firm and accepted

a private reprimand. Respondent agreed that the posts violated the Canons and agreed to take all

reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that his posts on social media do not lend the prestige of

his office to advance the private interests of his non-judicial activities. Specifically, Respondent

agreed to remove any posts from his government official Facebook page that did not involve court

I These type letters are commonly referred to as "Do Right Letters."

Page 3 of 13

~
 business 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 judicial events.2 Respondent was privately reprimanded for the behavior listed in this

action.

18. In February of 2022, Respondent entered into a second Memorandum of

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

his judicial position in his mistreatment of law enforcement officers in a case he was handling as

an attorney. Respondent agreed his behavior warranted a public reprimand and fine.

19. Despite clearly being put on notice, acknowledging his violative behavior and

agreeing to stop posting prohibited information on social media, Respondent continued to do so.)

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.
I ·__ )
Specifically he stated:

If anyone still believes justice is blind in America after the Kyle Rittenhouse

acquittals yesterday, you just refuse to accept an ugly truth. 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 more equitable judicial system.

20. Respondent did not just make a racially charged social media post, Respondent

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 4 of 13

J
made racially charged comments nationally during his appearance on The Kelly Clarkson Show

on June 22, 2022. Ostensibly, Respondent was invited on the show to discuss his "Do Better

ASAP" program. During the interview, Respondent said "There are many judges that don't look

like me and the people that appear before them. They can not be empathetic because they don't

look like the 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 want to give them a second chance if

they qualify."

21. In April of 2023, on the "Judge Carlos Moore" page, Respondent posted

information about a defendant who appeared before him that very day and outlined the conditions

she must meet for him to dismiss her charge, conditions that were not yet met, on a case that was

then pending.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

the Respondent to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. An independent and

honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in

establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe

those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved.

23 . Canon 2 of the Code requires the Respondent to avoid impropriety and the

appearance of impropriety in all activities. 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. Judges shall not lend the prestige of their offices to advance the private interests

of judges or others.

Page 5 ofl3
 24. Canon 38(5) of the Code requires a judge to perform judicial duties without bias

or prejudice, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or

prejudice based upon!!!£.§., gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or

socioeconomic status.

Canon 3B(9) of the Code prohibits a judge from commenting on a pending or impending

case in any court that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or

substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

25. Canon 4 of the Code requires the Respondent 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.

26. A determination must be made whether Respondent's actions constituted willful

misconduct.

SANCTIONS

27. In determining what sanctions are appropriate for Respondent's conduct,

consideration is given to the Supreme Court's guidance that the sanctions must be consistent with

other similar cases and proportionate to the offense:

Under this Court's established jurisprudence, in a judicial misconduct

proceeding, "[t]he sanction imposed should be consistent with other like cases."
Miss. Comm 'n on Judicial Performance v. Willard, 788 So. 2d 736, 745
(Miss.2001). The sanction should also fit the offense. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial
Performance v. Warren, 791 So. 2d 194, 197 (Miss.2001).

Osborne, 876 So.2d at 328.

28. Further, the Court has promulgated six factors to consider in assessing

Page 6 of 13
)
 proportionality:

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:
"(1) the length and character of judge's public service; (2) whether there is any prior
caselaw 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." (citations omitted)

Mississippi Comm 'n on Judicial Performance v. Harris, 131 So. 3d 1137, 1144 (Miss. 2013)
;,'

(citing Miss. Comm 'non Judicial Performance v. Skinner, 119 So. 3d 294,300,307 (Miss.2013)).

29. Applying those Harris/Skinner factors to the evidence reveals the following:

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

Respondent was appointed Municipal Judge for the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi in July

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

addition to Respondent's history of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi

Judges and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Respondent's disregard for

ethical boundaries is evidenced by public sanctions from State Bars.

(2) Prior case law on point

In Miss. 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 7 of 13
)
 appeared to make these type statements specifically about the African-American officials in

attendance at the conference she was attending as well as African-American officials in Hinds

County. The Court ordered a public reprimand and assessment of costs.

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. If you have your own mind and know what you're doing, they don't

want you around." The Court ordered Judge Osborne suspended from office for a period of one

year and assessed costs.

Jenevein v. Willing, 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.

Respondent may not have been wearing a robe or mhis courtroom while making all of these
comments, but he was certainly holding himself out to be a judge.

In Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Pe,j'ormance v. Clinkscales, 192 So. 3d 997 (Miss. 2016),

Judge Clinkscales utilized her social media to endorse a political candidate, and gave deceptive

responses in a newspaper interview. Clinkscales was publicly reprimanded and costs were

imposed.

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

made comments to the local newspaper in an attempt to explain his judicial actions and justify a

defendant's incarceration. The Court upheld a public reprimand, suspension from office without

pay for thirty (30) days, and an assessment of a (one thousand dollar) $1,000.00 fine.

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

Page 8 of13
)
 Respondent made disparaging insults, that were racially divisive, utilizing his position as

a judge and publicly commented about a pending case before him. Current cultural climate

recognizes the importance of racial equality and unity. Blasting racially disparaging divisive

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

target and sufferer of harm.

(4) Whether the misconduct is an isolated incident or evidences a pattern of conduct

Respondent has been disciplined by the ·Mississippi Commission on Judicial Perfmmance,

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

7/2017 Appointed as Clarksdale Municipal Judge

5/2019 Public Reprimand from Tennessee

9/2019 Public Reprimand from the Mississippi Bar

12/2019 Commission Do Right Letter

/ -) 5/2020 Appointed as Grenada Municipal Judge

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 timely do so.

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

personal law practice.

7/2023 Failed to timely appear or be properly dressed for his public reprimand in

Grenada County.

Respondent is nothing if not consistent in his predictability in his complete and utter

disdain for any professional conduct rule or Canon of Judicial Conduct. His patterns are clear

and clearly indicate the likelihood that he will continue in his same fashion if not removed and

Page 9 of 13
 ,-. suspended from accepting future positions for a period of time, such to protect the public.
(

(5) Whether the conduct was willful, intended to deprive the public of assets, or if it
exploited the judge's position

In jettisoning the former "moral turpitude" factor and substituting in its place this factor

for consideration, the Supreme Court had before it a complaint in which the judge recused himself

from cases, then reinserted himself and took further action in those very same cases; that judge

was further found to have abused his contempt power by issuing arrest warrants for indirect

criminal contempt with knowledge that doing so violated the parties' due process rights. Miss.

Comm 'non Judicial Performance v. Skinner, 119 So. 3d 294,300. (Miss. 2013).

In explicating what should be considered in evaluating whether or not the conduct was

"willful", the 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, knowingly, or

/ __ ) negligently." In re Coffey's Case, 157 N.H. 156. 949 A.2d 102, 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 Case, 949
A.2d at 115-16. For example, spontaneous conduct, such as provoked conduct,
may fall on one end of the spectrum, and may indiGate a lesser sanction. Planned,
premeditated conduct may fall 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 between spontaneous and premeditated
conduct.

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 his judicial 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.

Page 10 of 13
 (6) The presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating factors

There is 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 told 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 agreed to

change the name of his social media and/or remove inappropriate content.4 He did not do so until

after July of 2022, after this Complaint was filed against him. The Mississippi Supreme Court

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 ordered to attend

and receive a Public Reprimand in both Coahoma County and Grenada County. Respondent

appeared in Coahoma County. Respondent only appeared in Grenada County after the 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.

When asked to produce evidence of a conflict, he presented a flyer advertising the 2023 CBCF

Inc. Annual Legislative Conference Reception for the day before the hearing.s Respondent did

not file an Answer. Respondent did not answer ANY of the Commission's propounded discovery.

Respondent asked for a delay.

The Commission gave Respondent instruction and multiple opportunities. He has

4 MOU 1 was intended to prevent him from lending the prestige of his office to further his personal interest.
5 There was also a comment about National Bar Association having its Board of Directors Meeting with no further
details.
Page 11 of13
_j
 squandered each of them. He has agreed that he violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and

accepted increasingly severe discipline - until now. Now he says that be is "before the

Commission because of comments he made - if made by other Judges would not have risen to this

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

repeated actions have risen to this level. He doesn't mind public reprimands. He doesn't mind

fines . As long as he can keep his platform of the bench. His actions require removal and

suspension from accepting or seeking judicial office for a period of time sufficient to allow the

public disrepute to mend.

RECOMMENDATION

30. Applying the Skinner factors together with previous sanctions imposed on

Respondent and others, Commission asserts that removal, significant suspension, a Public

Reprimand, and a fine with costs are proper .6 The primary purpose of judicial sanctions is not to

punish the individual judge but to restore and maintain the dignity and honor of the judicial office

and to protect the public against future excesses. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v.

Guest, 717 So. 2d 325, 329 (Miss. 1998). Lesser sanctions have not been enough to accomplish

that where Respondent insists on repeating history. Nothing less than removal, suspension, public

reprimand, and a fine will restore and maintain the dignity and honor of the judicial office to protect

the public against future excesses.

Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to "remove

6 While a pennanent ban was discussed with Respondent, upon further research the Commission found where Miss.
Comm'11 on Judicial Performance v. Darby, 143 So. 3d 564 (Miss. 2014) indicated that the Mississippi
Constitution does not expressly empower the Mississippi Supreme Court to order a prohibition which "prohibited
from holding judicial office in the future." Thus, instead ofrecommending a permanent ban or prohibition from ever
holding judicial office in the future, the Commission is recommending a time specified suspension in addition to
removal.
Page 12 of 13
.J
 from office, suspend, tine or publie,ly censure or reprimand any jusiic.e or judge of this state ...''

This Court is not limited to one of the options. lbis Court has routinely upheld one or more of

the available options with a public reprimand. In Mississippi c1,iudge traditionally has either been

suspended or removed, not both. However, in Miss. Comm 'n on Judicial Performance v.

Osborne, 11 So. 3d 107 (Miss. 2009), Osborne had left the bench by the time the Court issued its

decision, but the Court still detennined a one {I) year suspension was warranted despite the judge

already having been effectively removed from the bench because the actions warranted it.

The Commission recommends a public reprimand, removal from office, suspension for six

(6) years, and a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) fine plus costs.

MISSISSI CO:MMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

\ JUDGE RYAN BRUHL

CHAIRMAN

Page 13 of 13
_)