Home>Articles>ACJC rules out removal of Carlia Brady

ACJC rules out removal of Carlia Brady

Panel denies judge’s motion to dismiss misconduct case

By Nikita Biryukov, March 19 2020 8:28 pm

The Advisory Council on Judicial Conduct won’t drop a case against a Middlesex County Judge accused of not calling police on her live-in boyfriend after authorities informed her that he was wanted for robbing a pharmacy, but it won’t recommend she be removed.

In an order filed Thursday, the ACJC denied a motion to dismiss charges against Judge Carlia Brady and set a hearing on the charge against her for April 27.

It’s likely a moot issue.

Brady, who was charged criminally with official misconduct, has not been renominated by the governor and is due to leave office on April 25.  That’s when her current seven-year term is up.

Even if Gov. Phil Murphy did have a last-minute change of heart, the window for her to be confirmed by the Senate is gone.

While the Senate today passed emergency rules that would allow them to vote remotely while the state battles CORVID-19, those measures would not permit the confirmation of judges.

Brady who was told by police that her live-in boyfriend was wanted for robbing a pharmacy but didn’t notify police when he showed up at her house.

Brady was charged criminally with official misconduct and hindering the apprehension of a suspect, but the charges were dropped following an Appellate Court decision that said the boyfriend, now serving a ten-year prison sentence, could not be forced to testify against the judge.

Appointed to the bench by Gov. Chris Christie, she took office in April 2013 and was suspended two months later.  She was reinstated to the bench in March 2018 following the dismissal of the criminal charges against her.  The Supreme Court continues to mull the ethics complaint.

In its denial of Brady’s motion, the court ruled that the possible punishments for Brady would not include removal.

Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina dissented over the panel’s ruling out Brady’s removal.

Justice Barry Albin also dissented, saying he would defer a decision on the motion until later.

Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES