Judge Astacio was convicted of DWI in August 2016, in an
episode that commenced when she was found in her seriously damaged car on the
side of the road. She aggravated the situation by her profane and angry
reaction to the investigating trooper, and by invoking her judicial office in
an attempt to evade the consequences of her arrest. The judge was sentenced to
a one-year conditional discharge. In the next months, she was found to have
violated the terms of her conditional sentence on two occasions. In November
2016 she pled guilty to attempting to start and operate her vehicle while
testing positive for alcohol on the ignition interlock device in her car. In
May 2017 she failed to provide a court-ordered alcohol test and failed to
appear in court as ordered, having departed for a lengthy trip to Thailand. Her
conditional sentence for Driving While Intoxicated was revoked and she was
sentenced to 60 days in jail and three years’ probation. The Commission also
found that Judge Astacio engaged in misconduct on the bench by failing to
disqualify herself from conducting the arraignment of a former client and by
making discourteous, insensitive and undignified comments from the bench while
presiding over three cases. For example, (1) she told a sheriff’s deputy that
he should “tase” or “shoot” or “punch” an allegedly obstreperous defendant “in
the face” and (2) in a sexual abuse case, she laughed when the defendant’s
attorney said that the alleged victim had “buyer’s remorse” and later said she
thought the comment was “freakin hilarious” even while acknowledging that the
prosecutor was “offended.” In its determination the Commission stated:
“The totality of [Judge Astacio’s] misbehavior as shown in
the record before us – her operation of a vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol, resulting in her conviction for Driving While Intoxicated; her
assertion of her judicial position in attempting to avoid the consequences of
her arrest; her repeated willful violations of the terms of her conditional
discharge; and her improper conduct on the bench – demonstrates her unfitness
for judicial office and requires the sanction of removal.” Judge Astacio has
served as a Judge of the Rochester City Court since 2015. Her current term
expires on December 31, 2024.
The Commission Proceedings
After a thorough investigation, Judge Astacio was served
with a Formal Written Complaint dated May 30, 2017, containing five charges,
and filed an amended answer dated September 11, 2017. The judge was served with
a Second Formal Written Complaint dated August 3, 2017, and filed an answer
dated September 11, 2017. The Commission designated Mark S. Arisohn, Esq., as referee
to hear and report proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. A hearing
was held on October 17 to 19, 2017, in Syracuse, New York. Transcripts were
prepared and the parties submitted briefs to the referee, who filed a report
dated March 5, 2018. Counsel to the Commission filed a brief recommending the
confirmation of the referee’s report and
the sanction of removal, and the judge’s counsel conceded that the judge
engaged in some misconduct and argued
that removal was too harsh. On April 12, 2018, the Commission heard oral
argument.
The Commission Determination
The Commission filed a determination dated April 23, 2018,
in which all 10 members concurred: Joseph W. Belluck, Esq. (the Commission
Chair), Paul B. Harding, Esq. (the Vice Chair), Jodie Corngold, Judge John A.
Falk, Taa Grays, Esq., Judge Leslie G. Leach, Judge Angela M. Mazzarelli,
Marvin Ray Raskin, Esq., Richard A. Stoloff, Esq., and Akosua Garcia Yeboah.
Statement by Commission Chair
Commission Chair Joseph W. Belluck made the following
statement:
“Nobody – including a judge – is above the law. This
unanimous decision from the Commission sends a strong message that driving
under the influence of alcohol is a serious offense and that the penalties for
judges who drink and drive will be severe. It also sends a strong message that
the Commission views the improper assertion of a judicial office for private
gain as a strong aggravating factor and that we expect judges involved in the
legal system to behave in a manner consistent with court orders.
“The members of the Commission understand the public’s
concern that Judge Astacio was allowed to remain as a judge while her case was
litigated. However, it is important that judges who come before the Commission
receive a fair and full opportunity to be heard, and that takes time. The
Commission also believes and has long advocated that the power to suspend a
judge while under investigation, which is very limited, should be broadened.
The Commission again urges the Legislature to do so.”
