Nebraska judge reprimanded for trying to get priest friend out of a ticket

HASTINGS, Neb. (KSNB) - The Nebraska Supreme Court has issued a public reprimand of Judge Michael P. Burns for interfering in a case involving his parish priest.

Judge Burns represents the Tenth Judicial District, which covers nine counties, including Adams, Clay, Fillmore, Franklin, Harlan, Kearney, Nuckolls, Phelps and Webster counties.

During a ruling announced Friday, Chief Justice Michael Heavican laid out the incident in which Judge Burns was being reprimanded for and why no further discipline was needed.

In March, Judge Burns received a message during a noon break from a county clerk magistrate that a charge had been filed against a person who was the judge’s friend and priest. The person, who is not identified, was facing a misdemeanor charge for driving away from a gas station without paying.

The ruling said that in the normal course of the magistrate’s duties, she would have processed it and a citation would have been issued with a court date appearance set. But the judge believed the defendant hadn’t intentionally committed this offense and asked to hold off on processing the charge.

Judge Burns then initiated a call to the county attorney who had filed the charge, explaining his relationship with the person and his belief that it must be a mistake. He asked if further investigation might be warranted before proceeding and passed along the defendant’s number to law enforcement.

The judge then contacted his priest, notifying him of the charge and encouraging him to follow up with police.

That same day, Judge Burns reported his own conduct to the Nebraska Commission on Judicial Qualifications. He also disclosed his conduct to colleagues and encouraged them to cooperate with the JQC.

Chief Justice Heavican said Judge Burns told the county clerk magistrate that her inquiry was correct, but his response to it was not. Heavican said “He (Burns) failed to instruct her that he had a conflict of interest and could not take any action. He should have declined to take any action.”

The court ruling added that while Judge Burns was only trying to help his priest avoid public embarrassment of an unjust minor criminal charge, he was only able to do so by virtue of his judicial position, using knowledge and contacts afforded to him as a judge.

The ruling said Judge Burns action violated the code of conduct for judges and that it created confusion and concern among his colleagues about his authority and their own obligations.

Judge Burns has no history of prior discipline. Adding that he has expressed embarrassment, remorse and has acknowledged the consequences of this misconduct.

The court said he took an important step in immediately reporting his conduct and cooperating with the JQC and encouraging others to do so as well, so no more severe discipline is needed.