“Judge DuPont will not follow rules; will not follow the law; will not abide by his oath.”
The fact that local judges and attorneys were willing to stand up for Circuit Judge Scott DuPont, as he faces serious allegations of judicial unfitness, is impressive.
But that testimony is far outweighed by proof that DuPont repeatedly violated ethics rules and codes of judicial conduct, both as a candidate and as a judge. These boundaries are carefully crafted to ensure that Floridians can trust judges — who can wield incredible power over property, liberty and even life — to be fair, impartial and knowledgeable of the law. Once shattered, that trust is nearly impossible to restore. And the Judicial Qualifications Commission found DuPont has broken that faith, on multiple occasions and in multiple ways.
“The record conclusively shows that Judge DuPont will not follow rules; will not follow the law; will not abide by his oath,” the commission wrote.
That's why DuPont should no longer serve on the bench.
Among the serious breaches detailed in testimony and affidavits before Florida’s Judicial Qualifications Commission:
*In his 2016 campaign, DuPont accused his opponent, Ponte Vedra Beach attorney Malcolm Anthony, of multiple serious traffic violations and implied Anthony was trying to hide other facts about himself. He also claimed Anthony’s wife had been arrested three times, and his daughter 21 times. Those claims were all false. DuPont tried to pass the buck to campaign consultants, but the law is clear: Judicial candidates must take final responsibility for their campaign materials.
*During a televised forum, DuPont flatly stated that he refused to find statutes unconstitutional — a position that former Florida Supreme Court Justice Major B. Harding says “very definitely” violates the canons of judicial conduct, which require judges to follow the state Constitution.
*DuPont’s conduct in his courtroom has been, at times, deplorable. The JQC documented instances where the judge ordered a deputy to remove cash from the pocket of a man who owed child support and give it to his former partner. On another occasion, DuPont rescheduled his first-appearance duties to accommodate campaign events, then showed up even earlier than the scheduled time and rushed through the hearings in 10 minutes with neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys present — during the course of which he increased one defendant’s bond by $90,000 and heard an incriminating statement from another. DuPont also threatened a victim of domestic violence with incarceration unless she underwent counseling at her own expense.
Terence Perkins, who was chief judge in the four-county circuit during part of DuPont’s tenure, says DuPont was by far the most complained-about judge in the circuit. He kept DuPont off a felony docket, he testified, because of numerous concerns that “heavy-handedness would lead to excessive or inappropriate incarcerations.”
DuPont was not without defenders. During a December hearing by the JQC, defense witnesses described him as caring, very hard-working and efficient with an eye toward innovation. Among them: Former Circuit Judge Hubert Grimes, who said, “Scott is not only a good man, but he’s a good judge.”
But the violations detailed during that hearing — and the grave concerns of his colleagues — can’t be overlooked. Time after time, DuPont demonstrated hasty rushes to judgment, both in the courtroom and on the campaign trail. These instances are antithetical to the fair and trustworthy administration of justice, and they can’t be “balanced out” by testimony of DuPont’s efficiency and innovation on the bench.
It is no wonder that, as his JQC case moves forward, Chief Judge Raul Zambrano has ordered DuPont to clear out his offices in Bunnell and Palatka pending the outcome of the JQC proceedings. The record is clear: DuPont should never return to the bench. If he won’t resign, he should be removed.