|
Judge
resigns post
Magistrate
had been suspended from office
December
16, 2006
By RICHARD
WHITING
Executive
news editor
Click
here for Joe Cantrell's resignation statement.
Joe
C. Cantrell won’t be returning to the bench to preside over
magistrate’s court in Greenwood County.
Cantrell, who had
been on interim suspension from the office since May,
submitted a letter of resignation Friday to Gov. Mark
Sanford.
In late November, Cantrell’s judicial career was
further sidelined when the state Supreme Court’s Office of
Disciplinary Counsel issued an opinion suspending him from
judicial duties in connection with misconduct in
office.
The opinion, filed Nov. 20, prohibited Cantrell
from returning to the judicial office for a year, without
pay.
Cantrell’s previous interim suspension, handed down by
state Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal, followed an
investigation by the Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office into
missing money from the magistrate’s office.
Part-time
magistrate Lisa Cain and office clerk Toni Cole were arrested
during that investigation and charged in connection with the
missing funds. Neither woman’s case has been heard in
court.
In a lengthy written statement, issued through his
attorney Rauch Wise, Cantrell outlined his reasons for
resigning and not seeking reappointment to the bench.
“My
resignation is regretful, but I feel under the circumstances,
necessary. This decision has been brought about, after long
consideration, for two reasons,” he wrote.
“First, my plan
had been to retire in the next several years. To wait out my
suspension and then resume my duties for one or two years
would be unduly disruptive to the office. I do not feel that
any personal considerations I may have should cause such
disruption and uncertainty.
“Second, the allegations made
against me by some members of the sheriff’s department that
resulted in my temporary suspension last May, contained
written statements and innuendo that were both false and
misleading. Detectives with the Greenwood County Sheriff’s
office made statements to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
that implied I had obstructed justice in the investigation.
These statements have been proven false. These statements were
not part of the findings by the South Carolina Supreme
Court.
“After reading some of the statements about me made
by detectives of the Greenwood County Sheriff’s department, I
question my ability to be objective in matters dealing with
some members of the sheriff’s department. As objectivity is
the hallmark of a judge, this is another consideration I have
used in deciding to resign now.”
Sheriff Dan Wideman had
little comment when told of Cantrell’s resignation and the
claims made in his issued statement.
“It would be grossly
improper for me as the sheriff of Greenwood County to comment
in any way upon the actions of this state’s Supreme Court,”
Wideman said.
“I authorized the criminal investigation into
the Magistrate’s Office only because I am tasked with
protecting our citizens’ money. We forwarded those results to
Columbia, where state investigators continued the inquiry.
Both a disciplinary board and the Supreme Court itself
reviewed them and took the actions they deemed
appropriate.
“Anyone who needs information regarding the
actions of those bodies direct their questions there.”
In
his statement, Cantrell further wrote:
“At no time have I
ever obstructed any investigation by the Greenwood Sheriff’s
Department. During the investigation I cooperated with the
officers and answered all relevant questions. The allegations
of any employee being under the influence while at work are
simply not true. The money that was taken from the office was
done by a trusted employee.
“By failing to exercise enough
oversight, I gave a good person the opportunity to go wrong.
My hope is that either magistrates will be fully trained in
handling of financial matters or a system is implemented that
relieves the magistrate’s office from responsibility for
financial matters.
“Magistrates are not hired for their
accounting expertise.”
The full content of the letter can
be seen here.
In
November, when the year’s suspension order was handed down,
Wise told The Index-Journal that “basically, what the order
says is that they (the ODC) reprimanded Joe for not properly
supervising his employees.”
“I would emphasize that at no
time does the ruling ever say that he was involved in any way
in the covering up of any wrongdoing or the participation in
wrongdoing,” Wise said.
Background of
case
Cantrell was appointed as part-time
magistrate in 1981, becoming a full-time magistrate and chief
magistrate in 1989.
His appointment was made by a
legislative delegation, which includes S.C. Sen. John
Drummond.
According to the ODC opinion, until about January
2005, the Greenwood County Magistrate Court deposit was taken
directly to the bank, but the procedure was changed at the
request or suggestion of county officials or agencies. After
the change, deposits from various county agencies, including
the magistrate court, were taken to the Greenwood County
Treasurer’s Office, which was given responsibility for the
deposits.
The daily deposit for criminal, civil and traffic
courts was compiled at the end of each day and placed in a
safe, and the deposit would be taken to the Treasurer’s Office
the following morning, according to the opinion. No receipts
were issued for the deposit, but the Treasurer’s Office would
forward the bank’s deposit receipt back to the magistrate’s
office, though on some occasions it took several days for the
receipts to be returned.
The opinion said Cantrell
“acquiesced in these changes without inquiring whether the
deposit procedure complied with the Chief Justice’s
Administrative Order of November 9, 1999.”
That order says,
“(W)hile the Court recognizes that magistrates must utilize
employees to their office to assist in the handling of monies
of their office, each magistrate is personally responsible for
compliance with all procedures for the handling of the monies
of their magisterial office and proper record keeping related
thereto and shall regularly, but no less than monthly, review
bank statements and other records to insure such
compliance.”
Cantrell gave the office manager, who was a
part-time magistrate, exclusive or nearly exclusive authority
to manage the daily financial activity of the Greenwood County
Magistrate’s Court, with the extent of his own financial
oversight of the office consisting of “spot checks” to make
sure that deposit slips matched bank statements, the opinion
said.
Cole was hired at the office in 1998, with her
initial responsibilities limited primarily to eviction and
fraudulent check cases, as well as the receiving and
receipting of money, according to the opinion. Those
responsibilities were later expanded to compiling the deposit
and taking it to the Treasurer’s Office on occasions when
other employees were absent or unavailable.
In February
2004, $1,000 in cash was discovered missing from the office
safe, and though law enforcement authorities suspected Cole of
taking the funds, she scored an “inconclusive” on a polygraph
examination during an investigation into the matter, and no
criminal charges were brought against her at the time. In
December 2005, $500 was discovered missing from the safe, but
Cole later claimed to have found the money behind the file
cabinet where the safe was located. Because the money was
recovered, the opinion said, no inquiry was made into the
validity of Cole’s explanation.
On both occasions, the
opinion said, Cantrell made no changes concerning the
financial procedures and Cole was allowed to continue her
financial duties with unsupervised access to the office
safe.
In February, when approached by another magistrate
who was concerned that the Nov. 9 administrative order was not
being followed in the Greenwood office, Cantrell reportedly
said he was not going to comply with the order for financial
oversight procedures, the opinion said, with the words, “I’m
not going to do it. You going to do it?”
According to the
opinion, Cantrell later said his comment was misunderstood,
adding the other magistrate “was the most knowledgeable about
court financial procedures and that his intent was to change
the deposit procedure by having the other magistrate review
the deposits. Accordingly, (Cantrell) stated he said, ‘I’m not
going to do it, you’re going to do it, and then I’m going to
check behind you.’”
On March 8, a court employee discovered
that $2,500 received as a bond payment was not shown as
deposited on bank records, and one month later, an entire
deposit of more than $4,800 from March 17 also was discovered
missing, the opinion said. Cantrell reported the matter to the
Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office, which began an
investigation.
When questioned by authorities, Cole
confessed to stealing the March 17 deposit as well as the
thefts of deposits for two other days, totaling more than
$14,000, that were not yet known to be missing, the opinion
said. She also confessed to taking the $2,500 bond payment
deposit and the $1,000 in cash found missing in February 2004.
Cole said she removed and replaced the $500 that was reported
missing, and later found, in December 2005.
Cain was later
arrested and charged after auditors discovered more money was
missing through the voiding and deleting of cases from the
computer’s system.
It also was discovered the office
“accepted and disbursed restitution payments, including cash
‘off the books’ either without receipts or with receipts
handwritten on whatever scrap of paper might be available,”
the opinion said.
Cantrell said he was unaware of
restitution payments being made in any unauthorized
manner.
The opinion said Cantrell “relied entirely on his
staff to properly document and disburse the monies of his
office and acknowledges that his supervision and oversight did
not comply with the requirements of the Chief Justice’s
Administrative Order of November 9, 1999.”
“The ODC
contends that the misappropriations would have been deterred
or minimized had the mandates and procedures required by the
November 9, 1999 order been in place. Respondent (Cantrell)
does not contest this representation,” the opinion
said.
“In addition, it was reported to the ODC that, during
the course of the investigation of these matters by the
Greenwood County Sheriff’s (Office), respondent (Cantrell)
attempted to influence one or more other magistrates to limit
the scope of the questions they would be willing to answer
during polygraph examinations. According to one magistrate,
respondent (Cantrell) suggested they only answer questions
about whether they took money or whether they knew anyone else
had taken money, thereby avoiding any questions about the lack
of financial oversight in the magistrate’s court.”
| |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
