Joseph Stanalonis (l) and David Densford at a campaign forum during the 2012 election. Photo by Dick Myers
Annapolis, MD — Maryland’s highest court has overruled a lower court decision that a St. Mary’s County senior prosecutor violated rules of professional conduct during a hotly contested judicial election in 2012. The opinion issued Nov. 23 by the seven-member Maryland Court of Appeals exonerated Joseph Stanalonis for statements made in a flier in his campaign against David Densford, who subsequently won the general election in November, 2012.
But, in issuing the opinion the court was critical of Stanalonis for statements that were a “product of negligent rather than intentional misconduct,” but were “core political speech and has the highest level of First Amendment protection.”
Judge Shirley Watts of Baltimore concurred in part and dissented in part, and Judge Glenn Harrell, Jr. of Montgomery County dissented in full. Both judges thought a reprimand by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland was appropriate.
The campaign statement that had led to the protracted legal issue was not in dispute. On a flier distributed by the Stanalonis campaign committee was a statement about Densford – “Opposes registration of convicted sexual predators.”
Both Stanalonis and Densford appeared before Judge Melanie Geter in Prince George’s County at a hearing late last year on whether Stanalonis violated the Maryland Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC). She ruled that two of the charges against Stanalonis be dropped, but the one regarding the sexual predator issue was valid.
In the majority ruling of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the arguments of the two sides was explained: “Mr. Stanalonis testified that Judge Densford, while in private practice, had represented defendants in criminal cases involving sex-related offenses and that Mr. Stanalonis and his colleagues in the State’s Attorney’s Office had dealt with him in that capacity. Mr. Stanalonis testified that Judge Densford had told him, in conversations related to the representation of clients, that he ‘was opposed to the registration because it was a long-lasting – [life-long impact on [defendants] and would carry with them forever, and moreover ‘that the punishment should be what it is in the statute for the particular sex offense and that if the crime calls for a maximum incarceration of ten years, that the maximum [time that] these individuals should be under the supervision of the Court should be ten years.”
The ruling goes on to say: “Judge Densford, for his part, testified that he had not expressed opposition to the registration of sex offenders as a general matter. During his testimony, he was asked, ‘At any time prior to your appointment on December 22, 2011, in your capacity as a private person and as a criminal defense attorney, do you express opposition to the registration of convicted sexual predators.’ He replied, “No. Not as a group. I did when I represented individuals. I didn’t want particular people to have to register and would negotiate that. That had nothing to do with the offender registry. It had to do with representation.’ He explained that he had sought to avoid having his clients ‘plead to charges that would get then registers as sexual offenders.’ He testified that he preferred ‘a plea’.“
The MLRPC rules establish a series of conditions for violation. One, according to the higher court, was that “the lawyer made the statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity.” In sharply pointing out that the U.S. Supreme Court has observed “speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office, including judicial candidates, is at the core of our First Amendment freedoms.”
The court says, “The speech at issue in this case – which purported to describe the views of a candidate for judicial office – is core political speech and has the highest level of First Amendment protection.” The court says, “there inevitably is some imprecision in language during the heat of a political campaign.”
The court, however, didn’t condone the wording in the flier. The opinion said, “Perhaps the Stanalonis campaign flier could have been more precise in its description of his understanding of Judge Densford’s position and the source of that understanding.”
The high court suggests a better wording on the brochure should have been “While in private practice and representing clients, attorney David Densford opposed placing his clients on the sex offender registry.”
Judge Geter in her opinion found that Stanalonis, in the campaign literature, made statements with “reckless disregard” as to truth or falsity. The higher court disagreed, saying the statement didn’t rise to the test of gross negligence” and overturned the opinion.
At the conclusion of the majority’s 20-page opinion, the court in dismissing the petition by the MLRPC, added, “Although we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to establish a violation of the MLRPC, our disposition of this case should not be taken to endorse the use of (in Judge Densford’s words) ‘antics and semantics’ in contested judicial elections. Every Maryland attorney takes an oath to act ‘fairly and honorable.’ Those who seek judicial office must resist the temptation to advance at risk of violating that pledge.”
Special Assigned Retired Judge Harrell, in his dissenting opinion, said that judicial elections in Maryland raise to a higher standard than other elections ” He said Stanalonis “ was obligated to make a more substantial effort in ensuring the accuracy of the proffered statement, and he failed to do so.” As a result, he wrote, Stanalonis “acted with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement that Judge Densford ‘opposed registration of convicted sexual predators.’”
Judge Watts also ruled that Stanalonis violated MLPRC rules and should be sanctioned.
The original charge of campaign misconduct was brought by Calvert County attorney George Meng to the Maryland Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, which forwarded its ruling to the MLRPC.
For a complete copy of the opinion go to: http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2015/74a13ag.pdf
Contact Dick Myers at dick.myers@thebaynet.com