Scribd

Case No. 1160002 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA ROY S. MOORE, ) Chief Justice of the ) Alabama Supreme Court, ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ALABAMA JUDICIAL INQUIRY ) COMMISSION, ) ) Appellee. ) _______________________________________________________ REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CHIEF JUSTICE ROY S. MOORE _______________________________________________________ Mathew D. Staver

†

Phillip L. Jauregui

Fla. Bar No. 0701092 Ala. Bar No. 9217-G43P court@LC.org Judicial Action Group

Horatio G. Mihet

†

plj@judicialactiongroup.com Fla. Bar No. 0026581 7013 Lake Run Drive hmihet@LC.org Birmingham, AL 35242

L

IBERTY

C

OUNSEL

(202) 216-9309 (tel) P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32854 Attorneys for Petitioner (407) 875-1776 (tel)

(407) 875-0770 (fax)

†

Admitted

pro hac vice

E-Filed 01/31/2017 @ 02:37:21 PM Honorable Julia Jordan Weller Clerk Of The Court

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................iii SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT....................................1 ARGUMENT...................................................1 I. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IS

DE NOVO

......................1 II. THE COJ LACKS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE............................3 A. The JIC’s Conflation Of “Review” And “Reverse” Has No Merit And Does Not Cure The Jurisdictional Defects Of The COJ’s Decision.......3 B. The Administrative Order Was Issued In Good Faith.............................................6 III. THE COJ’S FINAL JUDGMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE...............................8 A. The COJ’s Reasonable Observer Standard Finds No Basis In The Law..................................9 B. Mere Appearances Do Not Equal Clear And Convincing Evidence..............................13 C. The Administrative Order’s Plain Text Eviscerates The JIC’s Notion That Documentary Evidence Of Guilt Is Clear And Convincing.........15 1. The impact of

Obergefell

was not a proper subject for the Administrative Order.........16 2. The Administrative Order Properly Described the

Judgment

Issued in

Obergefell

and Provided No Legal Guidance on

Obergefell

’s Precedential Effect.........17

ii

3. Confusion Existed among Alabama Probate Judges concerning the Proper Understanding of

Obergefell

...............................23 4. The Administrative Order Did Not Direct Probate Judges to do Anything...............25 IV. THE COJ’S IMPERMISSIBLE SUBSTANTIVE USE OF CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE’S 2003 CONVICTION CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR.....................................28 A. Rule 404’s Prohibition Is Not Contingent On The Scope Of The Impermissible Use Of Evidence........28 B. The COJ’s Impermissible Use Of Evidence Was Central To Its Entire Conclusion.................30 C. The COJ’s Impermissible Use of Evidence Falls Under No Exception...............................31 D. The COJ’s Error Was Not Harmless.................32 V. CHARGE 6 WAS NEVER ISSUED AND IS NOT BEFORE THE COJ....35 A. The JIC Failed To Provide The Requisite Notice For Charge 6.....................................35 B. This Court’s Mandatory Rules Are Not Contingent On Chief Justice Moore Being Prejudiced By The JIC’s Failure To Follow Them.....................39 VI. THE COJ’S UNPRECEDENTED SANCTION IMPERMISSIBLY FLOUTED RULE 16 AND MUST BE REVERSED..................40 A. This Court May Review The COJ’s Unprecedented Sanction In This Case............................40 B. The COJ’s Unprecedented Suspension Is Impermissible As A Matter Of Law.................45 VII. THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S COMPENSATION SHOULD BE REINSTATED RETROACTIVE TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2016..........49 CONCLUSION................................................50