A Denver County Court judge is under investigation after he allegedly paid a $1 bond for a defendant in his courtroom in August, Denver7 Investigates has learned.
Judge Barry Schwartz has been reassigned and is not hearing cases while the investigation continues.
The incident in question occurred during an Aug. 15 court appearance where Schwartz was overseeing a bond forfeiture hearing for a probation violation in a 2016 misdemeanor assault case.
A representative for the defendant in that case said to the court that although bond is typically set at $1 in these cases, she was asking for a personal recognizance bond for the defendant because she did not have a dollar.
Denver7 Investigates obtained an audio copy of a roughly three-minute portion of that hearing where Schwartz is heard telling the attorney, "We have a dollar.”
Listen to the recording from court:
“It's pretty black and white,” Denver-based attorney Harvey Steinberg said. “What he did was wrong.”
Denver7 Investigates asked Steinberg and retired Pueblo Chief Judge Dennis Maes to each independently review the audio recording. Both said they have never heard of a judge acting in this manner.
“It shocked me,” Maes said. “We’re supposed to be impartial. We are not to let our emotions get carried away in the courtrooms so that we can make solid courtroom decisions.”
A Denver County Court spokesperson confirmed in a statement that they received a complaint about one of their judges and referred the matter to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline.
Maes added that the amount of money – just $1– doesn’t excuse what Schwartz did, and that it would be as big of a problem if the bond was $1,000.
He also pointed to the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct, a set of rules and regulations that judges are sworn to uphold.
Canon two of that code of conduct states: “A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Canon three is subtitled: “A judge should perform the duties of his or her office impartially and diligently.”
“Judges don't assist defendants,” Steinberg said. “You're in the middle. You're supposed to be the person who makes sure that the law is followed. You're supposed to be the sense of propriety. You're supposed to have a sense of fairness. … What he did, it clearly crosses the line.”
Regarding the investigation, both Steinberg and Maes feel that Schwartz should be able to keep his job, despite his misstep.
“I would not remove him permanently from the bench,” Maes said. “He thought in his heart he was doing the right thing and he let his emotions get in the way with him for a while. … While it's serious, it would not, to me, rise to the level of removal.”
Steinberg added, "Now the question is — for what I'm going to call a foolish mistake — should he lose his job? I don't think so. I think he did what he felt was an act of kindness. I would like to see more judges act kindly and compassionate toward defendants, but he also has to realize his role in the system and not to step down from the bench and take sides."
Denver7 Investigates requested an interview with Schwartz. A spokesperson responding on his behalf declined the interview, stating it would be inappropriate to comment while this matter is pending.
Denver7 Investigates also asked for a copy of the complaint. That request was also denied. Sources tell Denver7 Investigates that Schwartz is still receiving full pay, but doing office work and processing warrants while the investigation continues.
In response to Denver7's investigation. a spokesperson with the Denver County Court sent us the following full statement:
“We received a complaint concerning one of our judges. Upon receipt of the complaint, we referred the matter to the Commission on Judicial Discipline in accordance with established procedures. Pending the Commission's review and determination, the judge has been reassigned and is currently working in a different capacity. The Commission's proceedings are confidential, and we are unable to provide further details at this time. We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards of judicial conduct and accountability. Until the Commission completes its work, we will have no further comment on this matter.”