Nome judge discipline case needs new look by Supreme Court

The Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct’s handling of the case that led to a proposed reprimand of Nome Superior Court Judge Romano DiBenedetto—and not more serious disciplinary action—has led the chief administrator of the court system in Nome to allege that the judge’s actions “are being swept under the rug at worst or whitewashed at best.”

Robert Colvin, the area court administrator of the Second Judicial District, wrote Feburary 5 of “what I see as efforts to minimize things that have been reported to the commission.”

He’s got a point. The Supreme Court filing approved by the commission uses language that softens or tends to excuse DiBenedetto’s behavior. It puts a kind spin on his actions.

For instance, on January 8, 2024, a 6:30 p.m. hearing he was supposed to attend was delayed while the judge watched the College Football Playoff game on TV. He lied to attorneys about this and said he was late to the hearing because he had gotten lost in Unalakleet.

The court filing does not say he lied. It says he was watching the game on TV and “the person driving him to the courthouse briefly got lost.” It doesn’t say that driving delay accounted for 10 minutes and that the judge had refused to leave the house where he was watching the game until it was over.

All in all, the document downplays the incident by saying that none of the attorneys involved in the hearing believed it was harmful to their case that he was late.

An affidavit by prosecutor Ashly Crockett said “I could have been interviewing witnesses, meeting with the victim, or doing other trial preparation during this hour delay.”

Another example is that the Supreme Court filing mentions DiBenedetto’s “travel schedule” and the need to often cancel hearings without explaining he was often gone Thursday afternoons and Fridays for personal reasons, not for business.

Colvin listed several specifics in which he says the complaint against DiBenedetto and the findings of fact diverge from the statements reported by court staff to the commission.

He said the findings of fact ignored statements by court staff that DiBenedetto mocked the accents of Native people on numerous occasions.

“The final insult was the commission allowing for the shifting of blame from Judge DiBenedetto to the staff,” he said.

The findings of fact that said “DiBenedetto was unaware that persons hearing these reenactments would interpret then as demonstrating a lack of discretion and as undermining confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

The agreement signed by Jessica Dillon, the lawyer for the commission, as well as the judge’s lawyer and the judge, claimed the “consensus” of the court staff was that DiBenedetto’s impersonations did now show “actual malice, prejudice or bias. . .”

Colvin claims that was not the consensus of the court staff at all.

“The issue at hand is not how staff interpreted his behavior. The issue is his behavior. Unfortunately, his behavior as reported is not what is being represented to the Supreme Court or, more importantly, the public for review,” Colvin wrote.

He also said that draft affidavits prepared by the commission’s hired attorney appeared to have been created with the assistance of DiBenedetto’s attorney and minimize the judge’s behavior.

He said this was his draft affidavit prepared by attorneys, a document that was positive about the judge.

This was his final affidavit, a more critical document.

“My staff are angry, frustrated, and feel betrayed by what the commission has done,” Colvin wrote in an accompanying email to Marla Greenstein, executive director of the commission that oversees the conduct of state judges.

“They feel their testimony was highly sanitized by the Commission and that their words were twisted to achieve a desired outcome rather than being taken at face value and weighed fairly. They feel that Judge DiBenedetto’s actions are being swept under the rug at worst or whitewashed at best. I agree with their assessment. Their names are not on my letter but they agreed with what I wrote and I felt it necessary to give voice to their anger as well, even if it’s just in this email.”

The Supreme Court needs to act on this information from Colvin and the assertion that the commission drafted documents “that do not accurately reflect what was reported.”

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.