EI

FILE COPY [1 wr 25m

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST
Si
VIRGIN] 3
IN THE MATTER OF: SUPREME 5 21018
“THE HONORABLE C. CARTER WILLIAMS JIC COMPLAINT No. 78-2021
JUDGE OF THE 22ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT & 81-2021

FORMAL STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Es son comin 01 ks 2701

(d) and 2.8ofthe Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, has determined that probable cause does

exist to formally charge the Honorable C. Carter Williams, Judge of the 22nd Judicial Circuit

(“Respondent or Judge Williams”) with violationsofthe Code of Judicial Conduct and that formal
discipline issprintsbssd up he llwing probable cause ndings:
1. Respondent received his Juris Doctorate from the West Virginia University College of Law
in 1991 and passed the July 1991 West Virginia Bar examination. Respondent became

licensed to practice law in the State of West Virginia on or about September 23, 1991. From

September 23, 1991 through approximately December 31, 2016, Respondent actively

engagedin the practiceof law in and around Hardy County, West Virginia.
2. Respondent was elected to an eight-year term on the bench for the 22* Judicial Circuit in

May 2016 and took office on January 1, 2017. Prior to taking office, Respondent received a
copyofthe Personnel Manual for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. On or

‘about December 5, 2016, Respondent certified that he had received and read the Personnel

Manual. In § 2.3 on page 5, the Personnel Manual reads:

Urles_peifially_ cxempted, ll ste judicial branch pannel re

responsible for adherence to all policies and procedures described here.
Further, they are responsible for reading and for being familiar with the
applicabilityofthe judicial ethical canons. These rules, comprising the Code
of Judicial Conduct, are published in the annual rules volume of the West
Virginia Code.
In his swom statement of October 6, 2021, Respondent acknowledged his responsibility to

read and familiarize himselfwith the CodeofJudicial Conduct.

:
 3. Respondent has served continuously as a circuit judge since January 1, 2017. His term of
office ends December 31, 2024. At all times relevant to the charges set forth below,
Respondent was a circuit court judge and therefore subject to the WVRIDP and the West
Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct.
4. Upon taking office as a circuit court judge, Respondent’ license to practice law went from
active to inactive status. At all times relevant to the proceedings set forth below, Respondent
was on inactive status from the practice of law, as is required whenever serving as a circuit
court judge. As such, Respondent is still also subject to the West Virginia Rules of
Professional Conduct
5. Rule 412 of the West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure also gives the
Judicial Hearing Board the authority to consider lawyer misconduct and provides in pertinent
part:
In addition, the Judicial Hearing Board may recommend or the Supreme
Court of Appeals may impose any oneor moreofthe following sanctions for
a judge's violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct: (1) probation; (2)
restitution; (3) limitation on the nature or extent of future practice; (4)
supervised practice; (5) community service; (6) admonishment; (7)
reprimand; (8) suspension; or (9) annulment
6. On July 15, 2021, Judicial Disciplinary Counsel (JDC) filed a judicial ethics complaint
against Respondent. The complaint was given Complaint No. 78-2021. Later that same day,
Respondent called JDC to verbally report his misconduct. The verbal report ocurred afier
Respondent was advised by the Honorable Charles C. Carl, Judgeofthe 22" Judicial Circuit
and/or Hardy County Prosecutor Lucas See that Prosecutor See had a duty to report him
pursuant to the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.
7. On or about July 16, 2021, Respondent reported his misconduct in writing. Respondent's
report was given Complaint No. 81-2021.

2
 8. On July 30, 2021, the JIC filed a report under Rule 2.14(b) of the Rules of Judicial
Disciplinary Procedure with the State Supreme Court seeking, in pari, Respondent's
suspension without pay pending the outcomeofthe disciplinary mater.
9. By Order entered August 3, 2021, the Court deferred ruling on the suspension without pay.
Importantly, the Order stated:
‘The JIC report states that the respondent has agreed to no longer preside over
criminal cases in Hardy County. I is ordered that the Court adopts the
agreement, and the respondent is prohibited from hearing any matter
involving the Moorefield Police Department and/or its officers during the
pendencyof these proceedings.
10. Inlate September 2021, the Court again considered the matter. By Order entered September
30, 2021, the Court found “that there is probable cause to believe that the respondent has
engaged in a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct” The Court ordered the matter
remanded to the JIC.” The Court also continued to prohibit “the respondent from hearing any
matter involving the Moorefield Police Department and/or its officers during the pendency of
thejudicial disciplinary proceedings.”
After investigating and evaluating the Complaints, the Judicial Investigation Commission
finds that there is probable cause to make the following CHARGES and FINDINGS:
CHARGE
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 1.2 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office), 2.2 (Impartiality and
Fairness), 2.3(4) and (B) (Bias, Prejudice and Harassment), 2.8(B) (Decorum, Demeanor and
Communication), 2.10(A) Judicial Statements on Pending/lmpending Cases), 2.16(B)
(Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities), 3.1 (A), (B), (C) and (D) (Extrajudicial Activities
in General)ofthe Codeof Judicial Conduct and Rules 8.4 (a) and () (Misconduct) of the Rules
of Professional Conduct as set forth in the attached Appendix when he committed the following
acts:
3
 11. During the evening hours of Sunday, July 11, 2021, Respondent, his wife and a daughter
went 10.a new ice cream parlor in Moorefield and purchased some treats. Afer they finished,
Respondent left in his vehicle while his family left in separate vehicles. At some point,
Respondent could not locate his cell phone. While driving along a city street, Respondent
either heard the cell phone ring or hearda rate underneath his seat. He reached down and
retrieved his phone.
12. Meanwhile, on or about 7:25 p.m, Officer Johnson, who is African American, was
conducting a road patrol in the city limits of Moorefield when he observed Respondent
holding a cell phone in his right hand near the steering wheel while driving.! Officer Johnson
conducted a traffic stop. Officer Johnson was wearing a body cam when he walked up to
Respondent's vehicle. Respondent immediately identified himself as “Judge Williams.”
From the outset, Respondent acted in a manner unbecoming ajudicial officer.
13. Judge Williams asked in an angry tone why he had been stopped. Officer Johnson explained
it was because Respondent had a cell phone in his hand. Judge Williams sated that he lost his
cell phone and had just pulled it up from under the seat when he was stopped. At that point,
Officer Johnson asked Respondent why he was yelling. Officer Johnson then twice asked to
se the Respondent's license, registration and insurance. Respondent said he did nothing
wrong. The officer again asked for Judge Williams license, registration and insurance.
Judge Williams harshly replied, “I'm not going to give you my license and registration.”
14. Respondent then continued to argue with the officer about the basis for the stop although he
acknowledged during his sworn statement that the patrolman had reasonable suspicion to pull
him over. At some point Respondent said inanangry tone, “And you all aren’t ever on yours
Lis unclear whether Respondent was talking on the phone at he ime. Respondent has repeatedly denid the
same. However, Officer Johnson told Lt. Burrowsthat he observed Respondent aking.
2 Alicenseddriverwho cannot orwill not displaya license o requestingofficercanbeconvited ofa
misdemeanor and icesamaximum $500.00 fine. However,thdriver cannot beconvicted if he orshe presentsa
then-vald license othecourto at the police tation before hecourt dat. SeeW.Va. Code§176.29.
4
 [cell phone]. T drive bya lot of times and you all are on yours. You're never on yours,
right?” The officer, who remained polite throughout the discourse again asked Respondent
why he was yelling. Respondent denied yelling and again asked, “You're never on yours?"
Respondent then stated, “Let me tell you something, you all are on yours.” The officer ried
to explain that officers are allowed to use a cell phone for official business. Respondent then
said, “No, not official business” as he finally handed the officer his license, registration and
insurance.
15. Officer Johnson next asked Respondent why he was so uptight. Respondent said it was
because he was “irritated” that he was pulled over for “no reason.” Respondent continued to
argue with Officer Johnson about whether he could have a cell phone in his hand while
driving. Officer Johnson continued to remain calm. At some point Respondent told Officer
Johnson to give him a ticket and he would take it to municipal court and go to trial.
Respondent then said, “It’s ridiculous what you're doing. 11's ridiculous.”
16. When the officer asked Respondent why it was ridiculous, he replied, “Cause you all have
yours in your hands. I've seen it many times. You all have yours and you don’t get pulled
over. Don't tell me it's on official business. T hear your cases every day in court... . Give
me a ticket. Iam really iritated about this whole.. .give me a ticket.” When the officer
again asked him why he was mad, Respondent stated, “You just pulled me over for no
reason. Pulledmeover for no reason. Give me a ticket”
17. Officer Johnson then went back to his patrol car to run the license and write a ticket. The
officer leamed that Respondent's license had also expired upon his 55 birthday, which
‘occurred on April 17,2021.
18. While the officer was in his patrol car, Respondent contacted Moorefield Police Lieutenant
(“Lt”) Melody Burrows, who was off duty. When she answered the phone, Respondent
immediately said in an enraged tone, “Your boy pulled me over for being on my cell phone
5
 and I wasn’t on my cell phone!” Respondent toldherhis versionof what happened with the
Tost cell phone. According to Lt. Burrows, Respondent was extremely irate. Burrows told
Respondent to calm down and that she would contact Officer Johnson and tell him not to
issue the ticket. In her swom statement, Burrows testified that she believed the purpose of
Respondent's call was 10 stop the issuance of the ticket. Burrows also testified that
Respondent repeatedly referred to Officer Johnson as “your boy” during the initial call. Lt.
Burrows then immediately called Officer Johnson who happened to stil be in his patrol car
‘and toldhimnot to issuetheticket.
19. Lt Burrows then called Respondent back and told him that Officer Johnson would not be
giving him a ticket. While she was still on the phone with the Judge, Officer Johnson
retumed to the vehicle. She heard Officer Johnson re-establish contact with Respondent
Respondent then told Officer Johnson, “You can write mea ticket or not. 1don’t care. I'll
take it up to townand we'll g0 to trial, buddy. That's fine with me and I'll tel you what. The
next time I see anyofyou onthe phone I am stopping right there and calling the State Police.
Any ofyou”
20. Officer Johnson again asked Respondent why he was being argumentative. Respondent
replied that it was “because I've seen this crap enough and I'm tired of it.” The officer
started to hand Respondent back his registration and insurance. Respondent grabbed them
out of the officer's hand saying, “Give it to me.” Respondent then demanded his license
“now.” As Respondent grabbed the license out of the Officer's hand, Officer Johnson told
him that it was expired. Respondent droveoffwithout waiting for the Officer to release him.
Respondent could be heard saying as he drove off, “Next time ">
21. W.Va. Code§ 17B-2-1(a)1) provides:

+Respondent renewed hs license onlin later that evening. The effective date ofthe renewal was July 12, 2021
6
 No person, except those hereinafter expressly exempted, may drive a motor
vehicle upona sirceorhighway in this state or upon a subdivision street used
by the public generally unless the person has a valid driver's license issued
‘pursuant to this codeforthe type or classofvehicle being driven.
A violationofthis provision constitutes a misdemeanor and upon conviction a person may be
fined not more than $500.00. A second or subsequent conviction is punishable by a fine of
not more than $500.00 and/or confinement in jail for not more than six months. See W. Va.
Code § 17B-2-1(3). Violators may also receive two points on ther driver's license.
22. W.Va Code § 17B-2-12 states that “[elvery driver's license issued to a person who has
auained his o her twenty-first birthday expires on the licensee’s birthday” on a five-year
renewal cycle for any birth age ending in 5 or 0. W. Va. Code § 17B-2-12a(a) requires the
Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (“WVDMYV”) to “notify
ach person who holds a valid driver's license of the expiration date of the license by first
class mail or by electronic means to the last address known to the division.” The notice is
mailed at least ninety days prior to the expiration date of the license and shall include a
renewal application form and instructions for renewal. fd. The WVDMV sent Respondenta
notice in late January or carly February 2021 that his driver's license would expire on April
17,2021. The expiration date s also stated on the driver's license.
CHARGE II
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 1.2 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 1.3 (Avoiding Abuseofthe Prestige of Judicial Office), 2.3(4) and (B) (Bias,
Prejudice and Harassment), 2.8(8) (Decorum, Demeanor and Communication), 3.1(C)
(Extrajudicial Activities in General of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules 8.4 (a) and (d)
(Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the attached Appendix when
he committed the following acts:

7
23. At approximately 7:39 p.m. that same evening, Respondent called Moorefield Police Chief
Stephen Riggleman on his cell phone. The chief was off duty. Chief Riggleman did not
recognize the caller's telephone number. When he answered the phone, the person on the
other end identified himself as Judge Williams. Respondent then proceeded to tel the Chief
that he had “Just had words with one of your boys.” Respondent toldChiefRiggleman his
versionofevents leading up to the stop and his encounter with Officer Johnson. According
0 Chief Riggleman, Respondent was very agitated. Chief Riggleman stated that the more
they spoke the more agitated Respondent became.
24. Respondent told theChiefthat he often observed Moorefield Police Officers on their phones
and that in the future he was goingtostart calling the State Police and have them charge the
officers whenever he saw them. When the Chief explained that the officers were exempt
from the cell phone prohibition, Respondent said that was ridiculous and that it only covered
official business. Chief Riggleman agreed stating that neither he nor Respondent had any
wayof determining whether the officers were on their phone for official business.
25. Respondent told Chief Riggleman hewas tiredofbeing disrespected. ChiefRiggleman told
Respondent thatifanyone was being disrespectful it was him.ChiefRiggleman brought up
several instances where the Judge had been pulled over for various traffic violations since
taking office.ChiefRiggleman also questioned why the Judge had called him outof the blue
when he had never bothered to speak to him before. The Chiefalso mentioned that it was.
his day off and he was spending it with his family. Respondent indicated that there was
nothing wrong with the Judge calling the Chief. He also asked the Chief, whether he was
Chiefof Police even when he wasn’t working. Respondent then told theChiefthat he was a
public servant and the Judge would call him whenever he wanted. The Chief told
Respondent not to call when he was home with his family. Respondent replied by hanging
up on Chief Riggleman.
8
 CHARGE Ill
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 1.2 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 2.2 (Impartiality and Fairness), 23(A) and (B) (Bias, Prejudice and
Harassment), 2.8(B) (Decorum, Demeanor and Communication), 2.10(4) Judicial Statements
on Pending/Impending Cases), 3.1 (C) (Extrajudicial Activities in General of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and Rules 8.4 (a) and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct
as set forth in the attached Appendix when he committed the following acts:
26. Respondent also called former Moorefield Police Chief Steve Reckart at home that same
evening. The former chief had retired with the rank of Detective at the end of June 2021
Detective Reckart said Respondent was very upset during the call. Respondent asked
Detective Reckartifhe was still with Moorefield PD. When Detective Reckart advised that
he had reired, Respondent told Reckart that he needed to talk to someone and could talk to
him. Detective Reckart thought this was odd because they werejust acquaintances.
27. Respondent told Detective Reckart his version of the stop. During the call, Respondent
made negative comments about Officer Johnson and Moorefield PD. Respondent caled
Officer Johnson a poor police officer. Respondent told Detective Reckart that Officer
Johnson did a very poorjob. He also complained that Officer Johnson should not even be a
police officer" Respondent called cases from Moorefield PD that were brought in his
courtroom “sketchy.” He said the Moorefield PD was made upof a bunch of “boys and
that it was run by a “boy.” Respondent said he let some of the Moorefield PD cases go
through even though he probably shouldn't have and that he may change his position in

“In May 2020, Offcer Johnson was charged with the felony offense of wanton endangerment in Mineral County
Magistrate Court over an incident that occurred while he was off duty. The Charge wes dismissed without
prejudice in June 2020. Officer Johnson was placed on probation with Moorefield Police Departmentfosix
‘months afer te incident and successfully completed the probationary period. Chief Riggleman calls Officer
Johnson ane of his best offices. Respondents brother-in-law is Judge of the 21% Judicial Creu, which consists
ofMineral, Grant and Tucker Counties
9
 future cases. Detective Reckart kept asking him what he wanted and Respondent replied that
hejust wanted to vent.
CHARGE IV
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 1.2 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office), 2.2 (Impartiality and
Fairness), 2.3(A) and (B) (Bias, Prejudice and Harassment), 2.8(8) (Decorum, Demeanor and
Communication), 2.10(A) Judicial Statements on Pending/Impending Cases), 3.1 (A), (B), (C)
and (D) (Extrajudicial Activities in General of the Codeof Judicial Conduct and Rules 8.4 (a)
and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the attached
Appendix when he committed the following acts:
28. Respondent then called Lt. Burrows again at approximately 8:15 p.m.* Respondent was still
“irate” and “agitated.” He again mentioned how he always sees Moorefield police officers
on their cell phones and that he was going to contact the State Police from now on.
Respondent told Lt. Burrows that he had never been treated this badly as a circuitjudge and
thathecouldn't believe “my boy” wouldn't take his word for it. Respondent also mentioned
being recently pulled over by the State Police for not wearing a seatbelt and that the officer
let him go
29. Respondent told Lt. Burrows that his treatment from Officer Johnson makes him question
the Moorefield PD cases that he has seen. He said he was “sick and tiredofMoorefield PD
running around like a bunch of thugs, harassing innocent, hard-working people.”
Respondent then questioned whether “my boy” should have his job in light of the former
Brio 0calling Lt. Burrows, Respondent called the Honorable Charles Carl, Judgeofthe 22% Judicial Circuit at.
approximately 8:00 pm. The cal lasted about cight minutes. Respondeat told Judge Carl about the stop
According to Judge Carl, Respondent was agitated and upset. Respondent tld Judge Carl tht he was frustrated
ccaus the oficer would nol take his word that he was not using his cellphone. According to Judge Carl,
Respondent was really intent on proving himself right. Judge Car stated that Respondent also mentioned Officer
Johnson's MineralCounty charges and tha it wasthesame officer who hadust pulled him over. Judge Willams
alo discussed secing Moorefield Officersontheie cell phones.
0
 Mineral County charge against him. Respondent told Lt. Burrows that he couldn't believe
they hired Officer Johnson and then brought him back after the charges were dismissed.
30. Respondent also referred to drugs when speaking about Officer Johnson. When Lt. Burrows
advised Respondent that Officer Johnson had been clearedofthe gun charge following an
independent investigation and that she had never heard about drugs in relation to him, Judge
Williams countered by again mentioning the shooting and drugs. Respondent then told Lt.
‘Burrows that Moorefield PD cases were “sloppy” and that the officers do a “piss-poor” job.
According to Lt. Burrows, the call lasted approximately sixteen minutes.®
CHARGE V
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 1.2 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office), 2.2 (Impartiality and
Fairness), 2.3(4) and (B) (Bias, Prejudice and Harassment), 2.8(B) (Decorum, Demeanor and
Communication), 2.10(A) Judicial Statements on Pending/Impending Cases), 3.1 (A), (B), (C)
and (D) (Extrajudicial Activities in General of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules 8.4 (a)
and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the attached
Appendix when he committed the following acts:
31. At approximately 10:00 p.m. that same evening, Respondent drove to Moorefield Mayor
Carol Zuber’s house. Respondent then telephoned her from outside the house, asked her if
she was up even though all the lights were offin the house except for a television, and asked
herifhe could talk to her about the stop. Knowing he was outside the house, Mayor Zuber
said, “Yes” and met him at her door. The conversation lasted approximately 45 minutes.
32. The Judge told the Mayor about the stop. He told her he wanted to file a complaint against
Officer Johnson and that he wanted her to look at it. He complained that the Moorefield PD

Respondent also called L Burrows agin at around midnight. Sh did not answer th call. When shetexted him
he next day and apologizedfor not picking up, Respondent indicated that te call was accidental.
1
 was made upof“young boys.” He made negative comments about Officer Johnson and the
Moorefield PD in general. He complained that he observed Moorefield officers on their cell
‘phones while not on official business. He indicated that he was going to start to call the
State Police whenever he saw them on their phones in future. Mayor Zuber said that
Respondent never mentioned whether he received a ticket fiom Officer Johnson and she
assumed that they let him go not because he was a judge but because he was someone that
didn’t cause trouble.
33. She said the Judge complained that Moorefield PD was picking on him. When asked how
‘many times he had been pulled over by the agency, Respondent indicated twice in the last
eighteen months or so. He told her about another time Officer Johnson pulled him over for
running a stop sign but did not issuea ticket. He mentioned Officer Johnson's Mineral
County charges and indicated that he should have been fired. He also mentioned that the
charge could be brought back up.
34. Respondent complained about Chief Riggleman and the phone call that occurred between
the two men. Respondent also told the Mayor that Moorefield PD brings someofthe worst
cases 10 his court and that the officers are unprepared for hearings. When Mayor Zuber
‘mentioned that she would look at the body cam video in the morning, Respondent hung his
head and for the first time disclosed that he had been an “asshole” during the stop.
CHARGE VI
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 1.2 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of the Prestigeof Judicial Office), 2.2 (Impartiality and
Fairness), 2.3(4) and (B) (Bias, Prejudice and Harassment), 2.8(8) (Decorum, Demeanor and
Communication), 2.10(A) Judicial Statements on Pending/Impending Cases), 2.16(A)
(Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities), 3.1 (A), (B), (C) and (D) (Extrajudicial Activities
in General) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules 8.4 (a), (c) and (d) (Misconduct) of the
2
 Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the attached Appendix when he committed the
following acts:
35. At some point therealer, Prosecutor See became involved in the matter when Chief
Riggleman contacted him about filing a Motion to Disqualify Respondent from Moorefield
police cases. Prosecutor See viewed the stop video on Monday, July 12, 2021. Prosecutor
See did not know what to do and contacted former Circuit Judge Donald Cookman.” Judge
Cookman told him to gather all the information and take it to Judge Carl and to contact the
OfficeofDisciplinary Counsel and report it to someone there.
36. Prosecutor See called the Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel on Wednesday, July 14,
2021. Prior to sending any information to Disciplinary Counsel, Prosecutor See informed
Judge Carlofthe incident and the need to report. Judge Carl told Prosecutor See he needed
to advise Judge Williams that he was going to report him. Judge Carl offered to call Judge
‘Williams and tell him what was going on. Prosecutor See was not present when Judge Carl
made the call.
37. When Prosecutor See was on his way back to Romney, Judge Williams called him. The two
then met in Judge Williams’ office. After Prosecutor See told Judge Williams of his plan,
Judge Williams advised that he wanted 10 report. According to Prosecutor See, the two then
talked about Respondent geting a citation and paying it. Prosecutor See testified in his
swom statement that Respondent said Officer Johnson should not be on the force.
38. Respondent contacted Judicial Disciplinary Counsel on Thursday, July 15, 2021. JDC told
Judge Williams that it had opened a complaint on him that morning but that the Judge could
still report. Judge Williams acknowledged that his report was motivated by Prosecutor See's
obligation to report. Respondent advised JDCofhis versionofthe stop.

7 Judge Cookman retire from the bench and previously served as Chair
ofthe Judicial vestigation Commission
13
 39. Respondent acknowledged that he was “very upset” and “extremely upset” during the stop.
Respondent also admitted to being “very angry” with Officer Johnson. Respondent
admitted identifyinghimself to Officer Johnson as “the Judge.” Respondent admitted to
calling Lt. Burrows to “basically say I didn’t do this.” Respondent admitted asking Lt.
Burrows to “talk to” Officer Johnson or “to call him” or “could you do something”
Respondent denied ever threatening Officer Johnson with jail. However, he failed to
mention that he talked to others about the possibilty that Officer Johnson's Mineral County
charge could be reinstated. Respondent also denied trying to have Officer Johnson fired
Ye, he failed to mention the comments he made to others, including Officer Johnson's
supervisors, about hisbeliefthat Officer Johnson shouldn't be a police officer.
40. By letter dated July 16, 2021, Respondent reported his misconduct. Onpage 3ofthe letter,
Respondent said he “did not ask for any officer to be disciplined or jailed as may have been
suggested.” On page 4 ofthe leter, Respondent stated:
1 have also conferred with Judge Carl, who is currently Chief Judge of our
circuit, and we have determined that I will now switch criminal dockets with
him, such that I am not presiding in any of MPD cases or that of the local
prosecutor's office.
41. Around the same time, Chief Riggleman, not Officer Johnson,® prepared a ticket charging
Respondent with improper useof a cell phone in violation ofW. Va. Code § 17C-4-15 and
driving without a valid license in violation of W. Va. Code § 17B-2-12. Based upon
information and belief, the ticket was served on Respondent sometime during the week of
July 26,2021, when he retuned from a week's vacation.
42. Respondent negotiated a plea deal with Prosecutor See's Office where he would plead no
contest to the driving without a valid license and in exchange the cell phone charge would

*W. Va. Code§ 62-1-5a states tht policeofficermay issue acitation leu ofanrest
forany misdemeanor,
not involving injury © the person, that s committed in the officer's presnc,
1
 be dismissed without prejudice. A Hardy County magistrate accepted the plea offer and
ordered Respondent to pay a $30.00 fine and court costs.
CHARGE VII
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 1.2 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office), 2.2 (Impartiality and
Fairness), 3.1(C) (Extrajudicial Activities in General of the CodeofJudicial Conduct and Rules
8.4 (a) and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the attached
Appendix when he committed the following acts:
43. W.Va. Code§ 17C-3-4(a)sates:
‘The driver of any vehicle and the operator of any streetcar shall obey the
instructions of any official traffic control device applicable thereto placed in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter, unless otherwise directed by a
traffic or police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an
authorized emergency vehicle in this chapter.
A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor and upon conviction, a person shall be fined
not more than $100.00. Upon a second conviction within one year thereafter, the person shall
be fined not more than $200. Upon conviction for a third offense, the person shall be fined
not more than $500.00 See W. Va. Code § 17C-3-4(b). Those who run a stop sign may also
receive three points ontheirdriver's license.
44. On or about January 20, 2020, Officer Johnson pulled Respondent over for running a stop
sign. Officer Johnson said that Respondent immediately identified himself as Judge
Williams. Officer Johnson said that Respondent was polite during the stop and that he did
not give him a ticket.
45. During his swom statement, Respondent admitted to running the stop sign.

15
 CHARGE VIII
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 12 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 3.1(C) (Extrajudicial Activities in General of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
Rules 8.4 () and () (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the
attached Appendix when he committed the following acts:
46. W.Va. Code § 17A-9-2 governs operationof a vehicle without evidenceofregistration and
sates:
(@ No person shall operate, nor shall an owner knowingly permit to be operated
upon any highway any vehicle required to be registered under this article
unless there shall be attached to and displayed thereon or shall be in
possession of the operated when and as required by this chapter a valid
registration card and registration plate or plates issued therefor by the
department for the curent registration, except as otherwise expressly
permittedin this chapter.

(©) Anyperson violating the provisions of this section is guilty ofa misdemeanor
and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not mor than $500; and upon a
second or subsequent conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $500, or
confined in the county or regional jail not more than six months or both.
47. On or about September 29, 2020, The WVDMV notified Respondent in writing that his
registration on his red Nissan truck would expire on November 1, 2020. Respondent failed
0 renew his registration in a timely manner.
48. In November 2020, West Virginia State Police (“WVSP") Corporal Eric Vaubel was at the
‘Courthouse and observed the red Nissan truck in the parking lot with an expired sticker on
the license plate. The expired sticker was scratched up and looked like it was current
Corporal Vaubel found out that the truck belonged to Respondent and did not report it to
anyone.
49. On or about April 8, 2021, Corporal Vaubel was on grant funded overtime detail when he
noticed the red Nissan truck coming through. Corporal Vaubel stopped the truck. He
1
 recognized Respondent, who was driving the vehicle and told him that his sticker had
expired. He said Respondent was courteous during the stop.
50. Corporal Vaubel told Respondent that he had frst noticed the dead sticker in the courthouse
parking lot in November. Judge Williams asked him why he didn’t come find him then.
‘Corporal Vaubel explained that he didn’t have access because the Judge was behind locked
doors and had a lot going on. Corporal Vaubel did not give Respondent a ticket but did issue
a waming since he was on a specific grant funded detail and needed to demonstrate that he
was actually working a that time.
SI. In his swom statement, Respondent admitted to the conduct set forth in Paragraph Nos. 48-
50 above.
CHARGE IX
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 1.2 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 1.3 (Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office), 2.2 (Impartiality and
Fairness), 3.1(C) (Extrajudicial Activities in Generalof the Codeof Judicial Conduct and Rules
8.4 (a) and (4) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the attached
Appendix when he committed the following acts:
52. W.Va. Code§ 17C-15-49(s) states:
A person may not operate a passenger vehicle on a public strect or highway
of this state unless the person, any passenger in the back seat under 18 years
of age, and any passenger in the front seat of the passenger vehicle is
restrained by a safety belt mecting applicable federal motor vehicle safety
standards.
Violators of this provision can be fined $25.00 and no points may be entered on any driver's
record maintained by WVDMV. See W. Va. Code §§ 1C-15-49(¢) and (d)
53. In Summer 2019 or 2020, Corporal Vaubel stopped Respondent for not wearing a scat belt.
Corporal Vaubel was on a “Click It or Ticket” detail when he observed Respondent driving
without the seatbelt. Respondent stated that he did not recognize Judge Williams but that
uv
 Respondent immediately identifiedhimselfas “Judge Williams.” Corporal Vaubel did not
give him a ticket. He testified that the Judge's demeanor was “fine” during the stop.
54. During his sworn statement, Respondentadmitted to not wearing a seat belt
CHARGE X
JUDGE WILLIAMS violated Rules 1.1 (Compliance With the Law), 1.2 (Confidence in
the Judiciary), 3.1(C) (Extrajudicial Activities in General of the Codeof Judicial Conduct and
Rules 8.4 (2) and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the
attached Appendix when he committed the following acts:
55. Paragraph No. 52 above is re-alleged and re-incorporated herein.
56. In April or May 2021, WVSP Trooper Benjamin Thorn was working a “Click It or Ticket”
when he stopped Respondent for a seatbelt violation. Respondent was driving his red Nissan
truck. At first, Trooper Thom did not recognize him, and Respondent did not tell him he was
Judge Williams. Trooper Thom asked to see Respondent's license. Assoon as he looked at
the name, he realized he had stopped a judge. Trooper Thom then handed back
Respondent's license without looking to see whether it had expired. Trooper Thorn decided
not to write Respondent a ticket or a warning because he “didn’t find a need to sir the
homet’s nest for such a minor violation” He also said he wasn't going to write a ticket when
“T've got felony cases in front of him in circuit court that he rules on. Ultimately, I care
‘more about those felonies; so yeah in lieu ofthe schemeofeverything, keep the judge happy
and my cases will -cause you know he has a lotofdiscretion in things” (Thom Interview at
10:40 to 11:00). Trooper Thon testified that Respondent was polite, cordial and apologetic
during the stop.
57. During his sworn statement, Respondent admitted to not wearing a seat belt

18
 CHARGE XI
(PATTERN AND PRACTICE)
‘The Commission finds that there is probable cause to believe that Judge Williams also
engaged in a pattern and practice of using his public office for private gain and violating state
traffic laws:
58. Respondent engaged in a pattem and practice ofusing his public office for private gain as set
forth in Charges I I, IV-VII, and IX. above.
59. Respondent engaged in a pattern and practice of violating state traffic laws as set forth in
Charges Iand VII through X above.
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
‘The Commission finds the following aggravating factors with respect to Respondent:
60. After being wamed that his driver's license had expired, Respondent continued to drive his
vehicle.
62. Between April and July 2021, Respondent was pulled over for three different traffic
violations in and around Hardy County.
MITIGATING FACTORS
‘The Commission finds the following mitigation with respeet to Respondent:
60: Respondent has not been the subjectofany prior discipline while serving as a lawyer or a
judge; and
61: Respondent was cooperative with the JIC investigation which occurred prior to the filing of
these charges.

Judge Williams is advised that he has the right to fle responsive pleadings to the charges
‘made against him not more than 30 days after service of the formal charges upon him by the Clerk of
the Supreme Court ofAppeals of West Virginia. Any such pleadings shall be filed with the Clerk of
19
the Supreme CourtofAppeals and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. For good cause shown, the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel may extend the time for filing such pleadings. See Rule 2.10 of the
RulesofJudicial Disciplinary Procedure.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES issued this AA day of £074 2021

Thepra ‘Alan D. AT Chairperson

Judicial Investigation Commistion

2
 APPENDIX
WEST VIRGINIA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Rule 1.1 ~ Compliance With the Law
A judge shall comply with the law, including the West Virginia Code ofJudicial
Conduct.
Rule 1.2 Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearanceofimpropriety.
Rule 1.3 ~ Avoiding Abuseof the Prestige of Judicial Office
A judge shall not abuse the prestige ofjudicial office to advance the personal or
economic interestsofthe judge or others, or allow others to do so.
Rule 2.2 - Impartiality and Fairness
A judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties ofjudicial
office fairly and impartially.
Rule 2.3 ~ Bias, Prejudice and Harassment
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including
administrative duties without bias or prejudice.
(8) A judge shall not in the performance of judicial duties, by words or
conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including
but not limited to bias, prejudiceorharassment based upon race, ... age .
socioeconomic statusorpolitical affiliation. .
Rule 2.8 — Decorum, Demeanor and Communication
(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials and others with whom the
judge deals in an official capacity.

2
 Rule 2.10 — Judicial Statements on Pending/Impending Cases
(4) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be
expected o affect the outcome or impair the faimessof a matter pending
or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might
substantially interferewith a fair trial or hearing.
Rule 2.16 ~ Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities
(4) A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and
lawyer disciplinary agencies.
(B) A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known
or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a
judge ora lawyer.
Rule 3.1 - Extrajudicial Activities in General
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law or
this Code. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not:

(A) participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance of
thejudge’s judicial duties;
(B) pariicipate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification of the
judge;
(C) participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to
undermine the judge’s independence, integrity or impartiality;
(D) engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be
coercive; .
WEST VIRGINIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Rules 8.4. Misconduct.
Its professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(@) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct,
knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of
another;
() engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;
(@ engage in conduct prejudicial to the administrationofjustice.

2
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
IN THE MATTER OF: SUPREME COURT NO. 21-0698
THE HONORABLE C. CARTER WILLIAMS, JICCOMPLAINTNOS. 78-2021
JUDGE OF THE 22° JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 812021
RULE 2.8 NOTICE OF FILING OF
FORMAL STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Comes now Judicial Disciplinary Counsel pursuant to Rule 2.8 of the Rules of Judicial
Disciplinary Procedure and provides notice to the Honorable C. Carter Williams, Judge of the 2274
Judicial Circuit, by facsimile transmission, email and United States Mail that on the 25° dayofOctober
2021, she duly filed the attached Formal StatementofCharges in the above-captioned matter with the
Clerkof the Supreme Court of Appeals ofWest Virginia by hand delivering the original and ten copies
10 the Clerk’s Office located at the Capitol Complex, Building One, Room E-317, 1900 Kanawha
Boulevard East, Charleston, West Virginia 25305.
Respectfully submitted,

Teresa A, Tar Cowal

WV BarLD, No. 5631
Judicial Investigation Commission
City Center East Suite 12004
4700 MacCorkle Avenue SE
Charleston, WV 25304
(304) 558-0169
(304) 558-0813
teresaam@courtswy gov
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA.

IN THE MATTER OF: SUPREME COURT NO. 21-0698

THE HONORABLE C. CARTER WILLIAMS, JIC COMPLAINT NOS. 78-2021
JUDGE OF THE 22*° JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 81-2021

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1, Teresa A. Tarr, Counsel for the Judicial Investigation Commission, do hereby certify that I

served the Notice of Filingof a Formal Statement of Charges and a true and accurate copy of the

Formal Statement of Charges on Respondentbyplacing the same in the United States mail first-class

postage pre-paid and addressed as follows: J. Michael Benninger, Esquire, Counsel for Respondent,

10 Cheat Landing, Suite 100, Morgantown, WV 26508; by facsimile transmissionto (304) 241-1857;

and by email to mike. benningerlav.

com on this the 25th dayof October 2021.

Teresa A. Tarr, Counsel

Judicial Investigation Commission
WY Bar LD. No. S631
City Center East, Suite 1200 A
4700 MacCorkle Avenue
Charleston, WV 25304
(304) 558-0169
(304) 558-0831 (fax)

teresa tamcourtswy gov