Justices: 'Heiple never told us'

By Bob Greene

When James D. Heiple was elected chief justice of the Illinois Supreme Court last September, only seven people were empowered to cast ballots: Heiple and his six fellow justices.

Heiple currently stands officially accused of "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute."

The charges have been brought against him by the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, the only entity in his state with the authority to investigate and seek disciplinary action against judges.

Last fall, with the inquiry board's investigation under way, Heiple and his fellow justices conducted the seven-person election that rewarded him with the highest and most honored judicial position in Illinois: chief justice.

But now, it turns out, there was something that Heiple neglected to mention to his fellow justices at the time he was asking for their votes.

He never told them that he was being investigated by the Judicial Inquiry Board on charges of committing ethical violations.

They voted for him without that knowledge.

In separate interviews last week, three of Heiple's colleagues - justices of the Illinois Supreme Court, who sit side by side with him in the Supreme Court in Springfield, Ill. - said that they had no idea at the time of the vote that Heiple was under investigation. They said that he failed to inform them.

Justice Charles E. Freeman said that Heiple never acknowledged to his fellow justices that there was an open and active file on him at the inquiry board:

"We were not told," Freeman said. "And there was every every opportunity for him to tell us."

Justice Freeman said that had the other six justices been aware that Heiple was being investigated by the Judicial Inquiry Board, "I do not believe that the election would have gone ahead for Heiple."

Justice Ben Miller, asked whether Heiple revealed to his colleagues that he was under investigation on ethics charges, said:

"No. He did not."

Justice Mary Ann G. McMorrow, asked the same question, said:

"No, he did not. I did not know."

The election for chief justice is a secret one; only the seven justices are in the room. The breakdown of the voting is not announced; even the exact date of the balloting is kept secret. Here is what is known to be factual:

On Sept. 13 of last year, the Judicial Inquiry Board sent Heiple notification that he was being investigated for alleged violations of judicial ethics, and requested that he appear personally before the board in October.

On Sept. 20, Heiple wrote back to the inquiry board, acknowledging receipt of the board's notification and saying that he would appear before the board as requested.

On Sept. 26, the clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court announced that Heiple had been elected chief justice for a three-year term.

So on the day of that announcement to the citizens of Illinois, Heiple, by his own admission, was fully aware that he was being officially investigated.

Yet he chose not to share that information with the fellow justices whose votes he had sought.

The existence of an investigation of a judge is made public only if and when the Judicial Inquiry Board finds sufficient evidence to bring formal charges against a judge.

In the case of Heiple, the board did find such evidence, and publicly announced its findings - and thus the existence of the investigation - on Jan. 23 of this year.

By that time, Heiple was already chief justice. And by that time, he had already nominated his Illinois Supreme Court colleague and close friend Moses Harrison II to be chairman of the Illinois Courts Commission - the body that hears the accusations the inquiry board has brought against a judge, and that decides the judge's guilt or innocence, and how that judge, if guilty, should be disciplined.

When Heiple nominated his friend to chair the panel that would judge him, and asked his fellow justices to support that choice (which they did), he once again neglected to tell them that he himself was being investigated by the board.

So they went along with Heiple's choice of Harrison without having the knowledge that Harrison might soon be in the position of judging the man who put him in power.

Heiple now says he assumed the investigation of him was over by that time - the investigation he had never told his colleagues about - and assumed that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing.

This is almost certainly a falsehood.

Chicago Tribune