New Details Revealed On Judge Who Told Victim 'Close Your Legs'

TRENTON. NJ — A New Jersey Supreme Court panel has recommended the removal of Superior Court Judge John F. Russo Jr. from the bench, citing "multiple acts of severe misconduct" of the state code of judicial conduct.

The panel's findings, published on the New Jersey Courts' website, revealed far more details about what happened in Russo's courtroom in the three cases cited in the initial complaint about his conduct, particularly his handling of the domestic violence complaint.

Russo was suspended from his position in 2017 by Ocean County Assignment Judge Marlene Lynch Ford following a number of complaints about his conduct, including an instance where he asked a sexual assault victim whether she knew how to prevent herself from "having intercourse," suggesting "Close your legs" was one of the solutions.

"Because (Russo) committed multiple acts of severe misconduct and offered less than truthful testimony ... in an effort to deny or minimize his actions, thereby demonstrating his unfitness for judicial office, the record coupled with the relevant case law supports imposition of the most severe sanction: removal from judicial office," the three-judge panel wrote.

Russo has not disputed the court records, but has said his intent was never to shame or harm any of those involved. His attorneys, Amelia Carolla of Reisman Carolla Gran & Zuba of Haddonfield, and David F. Corrigan of the Corrigan Law Firm of Keyport, have argued his conduct does not rise to the level of being removed from the bench. A message left for Carolla seeking additional comment was not immediately returned.

Russo, who was admitted to the New Jersey Bar Association as an attorney in 1997, had been an administrative law judge from 2009 until Dec. 21, 2015, when he was sworn in as a Superior Court judge and assigned to the family division. His attorneys have contended he should have been given a suspension and more training because he was still so early in his tenure as a judge.

The panel rebuked Russo's responses, saying he had undergone training in the areas of how to handle the family court cases he was assigned, including family dissolution and domestic violence cases. The panel was particularly harsh over his handling of the domestic violence complaint.

The woman seeking a restraining order in that case had testified that in addition to the sexual assault, the man had disabled her garage door opener, had smashed her windshield, and threatened to burn down her home, according to the documents.

During her testimony about the assault, Russo interrupted the defense attorney in the case and began asking the woman whether she "did anything" to stop the assault, and asked her what she had done physically to stop it, even though the woman told Russo she told the man to stop and get off her.

Russo later dismissed the restraining order, with his ruling primarily based on the woman's testimony regarding the sexual assault.

After the case was dismissed, audio tapes in the courtroom captured Russo and some of the court staff laughing about the case, specifically about the sexual assault testimony.

"Respondent (Russo) asked, 'What do you think of that? Did you hear the sex stuff?' " the panel's findings noted. "Respondent then said: 'You think it's all fun and games out here.' ... The transcript reveals that an unidentified speaker, presumably the law clerk, said immediately thereafter, 'Please don't make me re-live everything I heard.' Another unidentified speaker declared, 'That was the most ridiculous trial.' "

Russo told the judicial panel he was trying to demonstrate the "the difficult task of judging domestic violence cases."

"Later, discussing someone's neat penmanship, respondent quipped, 'What I lack in handwriting skills, I am the master of on the record being able to talk about sex acts with a straight face.' An unidentified speaker asked, 'Without laughing?' Respondent answered, 'Yup.' One of the staff continued, 'I can barely listen without laughing. I usually hide behind the monitor.' "

Russo continually defended his handling of the situation both before the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, which in July 2019 recommended a three-month suspension in a 5-4 vote (the four who voted against recommended a six-month suspension), and the Supreme Court panel, the findings said. The Supreme Court filed the removal complaint shortly after the advisory committee's recommendations were released.

The Supreme Court panel rejected his contention that he was only seeking facts in his questioning of the woman's response.

"We do not profess to know, nor do we need to divine, exactly why respondent questioned the plaintiff in the admittedly improper way that he did. We find beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that respondent's stated reason for engaging in the questioning is not worthy of belief," the panel wrote.

It cited the 1995 state law defining sexual assault, which says "any act of sexual penetration engaged in by the defendant without the affirmative and freely-given permission of the victim to the specific act of penetration constitutes the offense of sexual assault."

"Respondent took it upon himself to engage in protracted questioning of the plaintiff, posing hypothetical questions that encompassed stereotypic tropes about sexual victimization and domestic violence. Respondent's questions displayed impatience, discourtesy, and a lack of understanding of applicable law," the panel wrote.

"There is one final, significant reason why respondent's assertions about why he conducted himself as he did are not worthy of belief. The jocular banter between respondent and his staff after the hearing demonstrates a lack of decorum and seriousness that suggests respondent's questioning of the plaintiff was not motivated by any of his professed reasons or by a genuine search for the truth," the panel wrote.

The findings also revealed more details of two other cases that prompted the investigation and Russo's suspension.

In one case, a man was brought before him on a charge of failure to pay court-ordered alimony that was part of a divorce settlement. During the proceeding, Russo admitted to knowing both the husband and wife in the case. He later said he should have recused himself from the case. The panel's findings reveal the man had been arrested after failing to pay $10,000 where he owed his ex-wife nearly $145,000. Instead of enforcing the warrant, Russo reduced a payment set by another judge from $10,000 to $500; the man was later arrested again for failing to pay the permanent alimony as agreed to in the divorce settlement.

Russo rejected the idea that knowing the couple affected his judgment in the case.

The third case, where Russo threatened to fine a woman who had failed to show up for a court-ordered paternity test on her child, includes additional details of Russo's remarks when the woman refused to reveal her address during a telephone conversation that was heard by a courtroom full of people, according to the court documents.

The portions of the transcript from that case show the woman repeatedly requested the help of an attorney. She also expresses fear for her safety, saying that is why she left New Jersey and why she won't give her address:

From the finding:

• Respondent (Russo): What's your address?
• C.P.: I wish not to disclose any of that information.
• Respondent: Ma'am, I'm going to tell you this: I am going to assess financial penalties against you that will make it very difficult for you to ever get out from underneath this if you do not cooperate. So, we need --
• C.P.: Well, I wish to have a lawyer before anything else.
• Respondent: Well, ma'am, that's not an option for you. . . .

After she reiterates her refusal to give her address, saying, "I just don't know if he knows anyone that works anywhere, and I really don’t want him finding me," Russo responded: "Well, he's going to find you, ma'am. We're all going to find you. The only question is . . . how much is it going to cost you to get this done."

The fact that Russo conducted the 9-minute telephone conversation before a courtroom full of people, the panel said, "demonstrated an insensitivity that is quite disturbing."

Russo's response to her concerns about revealing her address "was, mildly put, quite threatening" and the "discourteous comments and lack of patience reflect adversely on his temperament to serve as a judge," the panel wrote.

Russo admitted that speaking to the woman violated the judicial code, which says conversations between a judge and a party in a matter outside of a court hearing are prohibited. But Russo said his mistake was allowing the conversation to go beyond scheduling an appearance and obtaining her address, according to the filing.

The fourth piece of the complaint alleged Russo had used his position as a judge to seek favorable treatment in connection with his own child custody case. Russo has repeatedly denied the allegations that he sought special treatment. The panel found his explanations less than credible, the finding said.

The removal order, announced Tuesday by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner of the New Jersey Supreme Court, gives Russo and his attorney until March 13 to file a response to the recommendation. A final hearing is scheduled for March 30.

Have a news tip? Email karen.wall@patch.com Follow Toms River Patch on Facebook.