Inquiry Concerning Judge Cary Hays III

Cary Hays III, the Chief Magistrate of Crawford County, held a first appearance hearing for a defendant in the county jail complex in December 2020. After Hays set the defendant's bond, the defendant began cursing at him, and continued cursing as he was led away in handcuffs and leg shackles. Hays followed the defendant into a hallway, exchanged words with him, then grabbed him and pushed him against the wall, even though the defendant never threatened anyone or tried to escape and was not physically injured. The Judicial Qualifications Commission charged Hays with violating three rules of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct covering respect for the law, promoting public confidence in the judiciary, and treating litigants with patience and courtesy. Hays admitted the facts and agreed with the JQC's Director to a 30-day unpaid suspension followed by a public reprimand. The JQC's Hearing Panel voted 2-1 to recommend the Supreme Court of Georgia accept that agreement, and the Court did so.

A judge who physically grabbed and pushed a handcuffed, non-threatening defendant violated the Code of Judicial Conduct's requirements to follow the law, promote public confidence in the judiciary, and treat litigants with patience and courtesy, and this misconduct, though serious, did not require removal given the isolated nature of the incident and mitigating factors.

The decision sets a public benchmark for how Georgia disciplines judges who use physical force against people appearing before them, signaling that such conduct warrants serious suspension even without injury, while also showing the limits the court faces in adjusting negotiated discipline agreements.

Discipline by consent accepted: 30-day suspension and public reprimand

1. The court reviewed the admitted facts under JQC Rule 23, which lets a judge and the JQC Director resolve formal charges by consent and submit the agreement to a Hearing Panel and then this Court for approval or rejection.
2. It found Judge Hays's grabbing and pushing of the handcuffed, shackled defendant, who had not threatened anyone or tried to flee, satisfied all three charged violations because using force against someone appearing before a judge, absent self-defense, undermines the judge's role as a neutral arbiter and the rule of law itself.
3. Because no closely comparable Georgia precedent existed, the court considered an out-of-state case, a Mississippi judge disciplined for repeatedly hitting and cursing at a defendant, and found that case more egregious, supporting a somewhat lighter sanction here.
4. The court explained that Rule 23 limits its options to accepting the agreed 30-day suspension and reprimand or rejecting the whole agreement and sending the case back for further proceedings, so it could not simply lengthen the suspension on its own.
5. Weighing mitigating factors, including that the incident was brief, caused no injury, was an isolated lapse for an otherwise well-regarded judge with military service and no prior discipline, the court concluded the agreed sanction was appropriate and removal from office was unnecessary.

• judicial misconduct
• magistrate judge
• physical altercation
• suspension
• public reprimand