Editor’s note: This column has been updated since its original publication to clarify the position taken is based on proof obtained by the author, not the reported comments or actions by others.
In October 2014, I endorsed Mike Erwin for district judge in Division L, based on his 23 years of experience and my own investigation of him in the legal community. But today, it isn’t about his past 25 years on the bench, it’s about his conduct and actions outside the courthouse and what they have revealed about him.
It is hard and uncomfortable to make judgments about other people, but it happens every day in the courtroom, your office, our schools and our neighborhoods. I feel the same pressure in writing this editorial column each issue. But it is easier to do when you have the proof.
Judges such as Erwin and juries are certainly familiar with the burden of hearing evidence and reaching a fair and honest verdict that meets the test of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Their decisions are very serious and impact lives.
I am sure most of you have read or heard media reports about the incident last month involving Erwin and Kaneitra Johnson, an African-American woman. It involved an argument over a chair at the bar at Sammy’s Grill on Highland Road.
The Advocate reported on Feb. 8, “The woman, Kaneitra Johnson, wrote in a widely shared Facebook post the next day that the judge at least twice called her ‘n****r’ during an argument over a seat at the bar. The Advocate spoke with Johnson, who confirmed she wrote the post.”
At first, through his staff members, Erwin issued a “no comment.” On Facebook, Erwin’s friends defended the judge and Johnson’s supporters stood with her. It was a classic “he said, she said.” But what was the truth?
Significantly, a couple days after the incident, Erwin, a longtime patron of Sammy’s, was notified that his business was no longer welcome at the bar.
The sheriff’s office conducted an investigation of the disturbance and released a report on Feb. 14. The report says, “At this time Detective J. Johnson has not found any evidence or witnesses to corroborate the complainant’s accusation.” Interesting.
But the Feb. 14 Advocate story noted, “According to the original incident report filed by deputies who responded to a complaint on Feb. 3, a man who said he witnessed the argument between Erwin and Kaneitra Johnson approached deputies in the bar after they’d interviewed Erwin and the judge’s companion, motioning with his head to the officers to go speak outside.
“‘I don’t know who that old white guy is, but he had no right to talk to those girls the way he did,’ the man said outside the restaurant, according to one deputy. ‘I was sitting right next to them and heard/saw the entire incident with my wife and he talked to those girls like they were dogs using racist language.’”
The witness identified himself to deputies as “from Houma” and “white,” but his name was marked out in the released report, as were the names of all other witnesses. But it seems in the follow-up investigation, the man from Houma suspiciously no longer remembered the story and said he never made those comments to the deputies. Also interesting.
With the sheriff’s office investigation completed, the judge finally issued a statement—and that to me was his Waterloo. Erwin said, “Now that the sheriff’s department has issued the report—which does not find one single witness that corroborates the original allegation—I can finally defend my actions and my record as a judge. I never have, never would and never will utter the language I was accused of saying.”
As with my endorsement, I did my own investigation seeking proof (not speaking to “he” or “she,” but with others who had knowledge of the incident and wish to remain anonymous), and I learned that Johnson is telling the truth, not the judge. I found the judge’s statement to be false.
Here is my conclusion, which I don’t take lightly and reached with solid evidence, not hearsay. What Erwin said to Johnson was offensive and the way he acted was an embarrassment to the judiciary and our community. But sometimes those in power or elected office (or celebrities) do and say dumb things they regret and have to publicly apologize for. Erwin might have considered that path. People can be forgiving if one will humble oneself and ask forgiveness. But instead, I believe he chose to deny the truth and cover up what he did—and that is inexcusable. We expect our judges to be honest, and Erwin must be held accountable.
All judges are bound by the “Code of Judicial Conduct.” I include the first Canon of this code here for you to decide how it applies to Erwin and this incident.
“CANON 1: A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary: An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and shall personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective. As a necessary corollary, the judge must be protected in the exercise of judicial independence.”
In October 2014, my recommendation in this space was to voters in a judicial election. Now, in March 2017, my verdict is directed to Judge Erwin: Step down.
