Judicial Misconduct Allegations Rock Elizabeth Court

Municipal Judge Carl L. Marshall Faces Scrutiny Over Warrant Recall and LinkedIn Activities

In a shocking turn of events in the New Jersey judiciary, Municipal Court Judge Carl L. Marshall, serving in Elizabeth, Roselle, and as Chief Judge in Plainfield, is at the center of a formal complaint lodged by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. The complaint, detailed in a document released by disciplinary counsel Maureen G. Bauman, accuses Judge Marshall of misusing his judicial authority and potentially violating multiple canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Key Allegations and Judicial Missteps

The allegations against Judge Marshall stem from an incident involving an unserved warrant against a defendant identified only as A.H. for criminal mischief dating back to 2018. According to the complaint, on February 19, 2021, Judge Marshall personally intervened to have the warrant recalled without the defendant appearing in Central Judicial Processing (CJP) court, as required by law.

The judge allegedly instructed a court administrator via text message from his personal cell phone to recall the warrant and schedule a hearing, bypassing standard judicial procedures. This action led to the defendant being unjustly arrested in July 2023 following a routine traffic stop due to the warrant still being active in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system, despite charges being dismissed earlier that year.

LinkedIn Conduct Under Scrutiny

Further complicating matters, the complaint highlights Judge Marshall’s activity on LinkedIn, where he identified himself with his judicial roles in an apparent attempt to leverage his position for personal and economic gain. Such actions, as per the disciplinary counsel, might contravene the expectations of conduct set forth for judges, aiming to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Potential Consequences and Judicial Standards

These allegations, if proven, could severely impact Judge Marshall’s career and underscore the importance of judicial integrity. The involved canons mandate judges to avoid impropriety, act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, and refrain from using their office to advance personal interests.

As this case unfolds, it serves as a critical reminder of the standards to which all judicial officers are held, ensuring that justice is administered without prejudice or personal bias. The legal community and public alike await further developments and the final determination from the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.