A Superior Court Judge from the Middle Judicial Circuit has been suspended for thirty days without pay and received a public reprimand to resolve a case about his behavior inside and outside of the courtroom. The state’s high court also required in the order that the judge not seek re-election at the end of his term, which concludes on December 31, 2026.
A 58-count complaint was filed against Superior Court Judge Robert “Bobby” Reeves with the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) in 2022 over allegations of improper temperament and comments on the bench, improper comments demonstrating bias and prejudice, improper contact with court personnel, and ethical violations surrounding the fundraising and support for a victim assistance entity in the judicial circuit.
Specifically, the complaint contended that Reeves:
- Appeared in a promotion video for the Sunshine House, in which was identified as “Judge Bobby Reeves, Superior Court Judge” and made statements including:
- “The Sunshine House makes a huge difference in affecting justice in our area because it does help immensely with the prosecution of those who have molested and abused children.”
- “It does help in getting people prosecuted. It does help in getting people convicted when they abuse children.”
- Cohosted the Sunshine House’s Facebook ‘Give-A-Thon’ Fundraiser, which
- was identified throughout the two hour fundraiser as ‘Judge Reeves,’
- Urged viewers to donate
- Made a $500 donation and challenged “every other judge and lawyer out there to at least match that donation.”
- Stated “I told y’all some names to call. Call those judges in every county to get them on board. They all know how important the Sunshine House is…”
- discussed the important of the Sunshine House’s work in prosecuting cases with the DA’s office
- 2019 (Toombs): During a criminal proceeding where a defendant had a name similar to the word ‘innocence,’ Judge Reeves called the defendant’s name and stated words to the effect of, “I guess the name didn’t take.”
- 2020/2021 (Jefferson): Judge Reeves made comments about another Superior Court Judge being too lenient and stated that he would have to “double up” (or words to that effect) on his sentencing to make up the difference. Reeves also stated that he would have to ‘do what he could to make sure that same Superior Court Judge was not assigned important cases.’
- 2021 (Toombs): When asking court attendees to remain seated until he finished his instructions, ‘an African-American male started to leave the courtroom.’ Judge Reeves then stated to the male, “[s]ir you’re walking and I’m telling you to be still. Are you really that retarded?” This occurred in open court with members of the public, lawyers, and court staff present.
- 2021 (Emanuel): When passing an Investigator with the Public Defender’s Office and the mother of a son with a pending case, Judge Reeves said to the woman, “I don’t know why you are talking to him [Investigator] about drugs. He’s the biggest drug dealer in Emanuel County.”
- 2022 (Toombs): In open court, a jailer asked Judge Reeves when the court would recess for lunch. Judge Reeves responded with words to the effect of “[g]et the people [inmates] fed? You mean we have to feed these people [inmates]?”
- 2022: During court proceedings, Judge Reeves repeatedly admonished a public defender for not having paperwork prepared properly. This occurred while the PD’s office was experiencing ‘extreme staffing shortages.’ The level of rebuke reached a point where the female public defender left the courthouse crying. After she left, Reeves remarked in open court, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
- Subjected four individuals to Reeves’ comments from 2016 to 2022. The charging document stated the pattern of improper behavior, at a minimum, “gave the appearance of constituting sexual harassment and/or bias based upon the gender of various females involved in the middle Judicial Circuit court system.”
Reeves, who serves as the Chief Judge in Emanuel, Candler, Jefferson, Toombs, and Washington counties, initially denied all of the allegations, despite supporting evidence for a number of the claims existing in photographic and video form.
Represented by attorney Lester Tate, Reeves and the JQC entered into an initial consent agreement in June 2024 that included only a public reprimand, but the Hearing Panel rejected the sanction as ‘insufficient’ and gave guidance on the type of sanctions the Panel would find more appropriate, noting that removal from office would be too severe.
The final Order issued on July 30, 2024 is listed as a disciplinary action consented to by both the JQC and Reeves and ordered in a unanimous decision by the Justices.
Terms of the Consent Agreement for Discipline:
- Reeves will serve a 30-day suspension without pay. During this time, he must stay away from the various courthouses in the circuit.
- Suspension must begin by September 1, 2024
- Upon his return, a public reprimand must be published in the Candler, Emanuel, Jefferson, Toombs, and Washington County legal organs and the Fulton County Daily Report.
- Reeves will voluntarily recuse himself from any cases involving certain lawyers named in the allegations of the JQC complaint.
- The records and filings of the JQC investigation and findings must be unsealed
The Order reads, in part:
Under the Consent Agreement, Judge Reeves either admitted the charge or admitted that “evidence exists with which the Director could prove” the charge in 33 of the formal charges’ 58 counts…And the Director [of the JQC] explained that she did not proceed on the remaining counts because, as to some counts, Judge Reeves had admitted violating other provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct based on the same conduct, and, as to other counts, there were conflicts in the evidence or issues with a witness’s credibility.
The Supreme Court Order references admission by Reeves which”
describe[d] fourteen incidents spanning seven years of [Judge] Reeves’s seventeen years of service as a Superior Court judge. Most of these episodes involved [Judge] Reeves’s use of coarse, insensitive, demeaning, and/or insulting language, particularly with women. One involved a series of minor but nonetheless unwanted physical contacts between [Judge] Reeves and a female lawyer. The remaining incidents consisted of [Judge] Reeves improperly seeking to influence the handling of criminal prosecutions and misusing his title and office to assist the fundraising efforts of a local charity.
The Hearing Panel found that Judge Reeves’s admissions pursuant to the Consent Agreement proved by clear and convincing evidence 5 that Judge Reeves committed the charged acts.
Specifically:
All of Judge Reeves’s offensive in-court and out-of-court statements violated Rules 1.2 (A) (duty to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary) and 2.8 (B) (duty to be dignified and courteous to all with whom judges interact in their official capacity). Some of his statements also were inconsistent with Rule 2.3 (B) (duty not to engage in sexual harassment). His various improper interactions with a municipal court judge and state and superior court prosecutors concerning their cases and investigations violated Rules 1.2 (A), 1.3 (duty not to lend prestige of office to advance private interests of others) and 2.9 (A) (duty to avoid ex parte communications). Finally, his well-meaning but prohibited fundraising efforts ran afoul of Rules 1.2 (A), 1.3, and 3.1 (C) (duty to abstain from extrajudicial activities that cast doubt on judicial impartiality)[,] and 3.7 (A) (3) (duty to refrain from personally soliciting funds for organizations).
[Judge] Reeves’s various acts of misconduct constitute[d] willful misconduct in office (i.e., judicial acts taken in bad faith), habitual intemperance (i.e., rude, abusive, or offcolor language or improper and unsolicited physical contact), and/or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute.
Finally, the Hearing Panel:
highlighted the instances of “unwanted physical contact” and “judicial interference in criminal proceedings,” but noted that Judge Reeves’s offenses were “not mean-spirited or self-serving” and that he had taken a “refreshing and honest approach to the investigative process” and accepted responsibility for his misconduct.
