Background
Marc Knapp was elected to the Orphans’ Court for Anne Arundel County in November 2022 alongside colleagues David Duba and Vickie Gipson, who was subsequently appointed Chief Judge by the Governor. Unlike most multi-judge jurisdictions in Maryland, Anne Arundel County requires at least two of the three Orphans’ Court judges to concur before the court can take any official action, making collegial functioning essential. Within weeks of taking the bench, Judge Knapp developed an openly hostile relationship with Chief Judge Gipson, criticizing her writing and legal ability, refusing to commit to basic professional norms such as listening without interruption, and engaging in public shouting matches in chambers audible to court staff and litigants.
The misconduct escalated over the following two years. On June 4, 2024, Judge Knapp secretly recorded judicial deliberations with his colleagues without their consent. When Anne Arundel County police responded to a 911 complaint about the recordings, Judge Knapp intentionally deleted the audio files in the presence of the investigating officers. The Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities initiated charges across eight separate complaint files. After a three-day public hearing at which twelve witnesses testified, the Commission unanimously found by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Knapp had violated six provisions of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct and unanimously recommended removal from office.
Before the Supreme Court, Judge Knapp raised threshold procedural objections — arguing that his case should have been consolidated with a pending disciplinary case against Chief Judge Gipson, and that a cell-phone recording recovered by law enforcement should have been excluded because the same evidence had been suppressed in a parallel criminal proceeding — and also filed 24 exceptions to the Commission’s factual findings and five exceptions to its legal conclusions, urging a lesser sanction.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Commission’s findings and ordered Judge Knapp removed from office. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the Commission Chair’s denial of consolidation, crediting her reasoned determination that any efficiency gained would be outweighed by the risk of confusion and prejudice to Chief Judge Gipson’s separate rights. On the evidentiary question, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not automatically extend to judicial disciplinary proceedings. Applying the balancing test from United States v. Janis and the factors this Court articulated in Sheetz v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, the Court concluded that Judge Knapp failed to show that police were improperly motivated to seize the cell phone for the purpose of benefiting the civil disciplinary proceeding, and therefore the Commission properly admitted the recording and officer testimony.
On the merits, the Court upheld violations of Maryland Rules 18-101.1, 18-101.2, 18-102.3, 18-102.5, 18-102.8(b), and 18-102.16, encompassing: covert recording of judicial deliberations; the intentional destruction of evidence before law enforcement; persistent discourteous and demeaning conduct toward a judicial colleague and court staff both on and off the bench; conduct creating a perception of bias against women and persons of color; public disparagement of the judiciary and a colleague; and non-cooperation with the Commission’s investigation.
The Court held that Judge Knapp’s deliberate deletion of the audio recordings in the presence of investigating officers, standing alone, was sufficient to warrant removal. Noting that such conduct is “fundamentally incompatible with judicial office” and erodes public confidence in the judiciary, the Court further concluded that even accounting for mitigating factors, removal was the only disposition that would preserve the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary and assure the public that such misconduct would not be tolerated.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence suppressed under the Fourth Amendment in a criminal proceeding is not automatically excluded from a judicial disciplinary hearing; courts apply the Janis/Sheetz balancing test to assess whether exclusion’s deterrent benefit outweighs the societal cost of suppressing reliable evidence in a civil administrative context.
- Intentionally destroying evidence in the presence of law enforcement officers constitutes egregious judicial misconduct that alone may justify removal from office, independent of any accompanying violations.
- Sustained disrespect for a judicial colleague — including public insults, refusal to observe basic collegial norms, and openly hostile conduct during court hearings — violates the MCJC’s requirements of decorum, impartiality, and conduct promoting public confidence in the judiciary.
- A commission chair’s denial of consolidation in disciplinary proceedings is reviewed for abuse of discretion; absent a governing rule mandating joinder, the chair’s reasoned balancing of efficiency against confusion and the rights of separately charged respondents will be upheld.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores that the judiciary’s disciplinary process operates largely independent of parallel criminal proceedings, including suppression rulings. Defense practitioners and judges facing disciplinary charges should not assume that a favorable Fourth Amendment ruling in criminal court will carry over to shield the same evidence before a judicial disabilities commission. The Sheetz factors give commissions substantial room to admit evidence so long as law enforcement’s motivation was not tied to the civil proceeding.
More broadly, the opinion sends a clear signal about the floor of acceptable judicial behavior in collegial courts. Persistent public belittling of a colleague, covert recordings of deliberations, and evidence destruction combine to a level of misconduct that forfeits the protections otherwise afforded to mitigating circumstances. For bar counsel and disciplinary bodies in other jurisdictions, In re Knapp offers a detailed factual record illustrating how individually serious violations can compound into a removal-worthy pattern, even where some charged violations are ultimately not sustained.