by Dick Hall-Sizemore

Thanks to the reporting of the Fredericksburg Free Press, more detail is available on the case of the Spotsylvania County judge indicted on bribery charges.

As noted in an earlier article in Bacon’s Rebellion, Richard T. McGrath, chief district court judge of the 15^th Judicial District, which includes Spotsylvania County, was indicted on a charge of bribery of a public official, a Class 4 felony.  

One normally thinks of bribery as the giving of money or something else of value to a public official to gain some advantage. This is not the case with McGrath.  Allegedly, he was seeking pay raises for the local district court staff and, in a meeting with county officials, including the chair of the Board of Supervisors, he allegedly threatened to begin dismissing traffic tickets if the staff did not get raises.

Some background information should help with the context of this situation. The staffing levels and salaries of the general district courts are determined by the Committee on General District Courts, which is part of Virginia’s judicial branch. However, localities may choose to supplement those salaries out of local funds. For example, Prince William County provides a 15 percent supplement to its district court personnel. In Spotsylvania County, the salary range for district court personnel is $36,725 to $53,325, with a reported average salary of $44,253.

Local governments are authorized to incorporate state traffic offenses into their local code of ordinances. The only restriction is that the local ordinance cannot be in conflict with state law, including penalties. The primary advantage for local governments to do this is financial. If a traffic ticket is written as a violation of the local ordinance, rather than as a violation of the state law, any fine levied by the court is deposited into the local treasury, rather than into the State Literary Fund.

In summary, Judge McGrath allegedly was threatening to cut off a source of county revenue if his district court staff did not get raises.

Under Virginia law, such action, if proven, would be a violation of the bribery statutes. The primary statute in question states, “A person shall be guilty of bribery under the provisions of this article … if he solicits from another … any benefit or promise of benefit as consideration for or in exchange for his decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding.” A related statute defines “benefit” as “a gain or advantage, or anything regarded by the beneficiary as a gain or advantage, including a benefit to any other person or entity in whose welfare he is interested….” [Emphasis added.] As Nate Green, the Williamsburg Commonwealth’s attorney assigned to prosecute the case, explained, “He was charged with soliciting a bribe, not offering a bribe. He basically was asking someone to give money, not to give him money.”

My Soapbox

Judge McGrath is represented by Craig Cooley, a well-respected Richmond criminal defense attorney. (Judges in Richmond often appoint him to represent defendants in high-profile or difficult criminal cases.) One line of defense could be whether the judge’s remarks or threat were serious, rather than something like an off-hand remark along the lines of, “Oh, I could always dismiss some traffic cases,” said in a joking way or something said impulsively in the heat of anger or exasperation. 

The understaffing of the general district courts and the low pay levels for the staff have long been issues that the General Assembly has grappled with. One can hardly blame Judge McGrath for looking out for his staff. However, regardless of whether it is determined that he is guilty of the criminal charge, a judge even intimating that he might use his judicial discretion to effect some action not directly directed to the case before him, however worthy that cause, risks violating the first canon of judicial conduct:  “A judge must not allow family, social, political, economic, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”

Tip of the hat to LarrytheG for bringing the Free Press article to my attention.