TOPEKA — Judge Maritza Segarra of the 8th judicial district was appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in one case on the court's docket Monday, September 12.
After hearing oral arguments, Segarra joined Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and opinion drafting.
"I am pleased that Judge Segarra took time from her duties in the 8th judicial district to sit with the Supreme Court," said Chief Justice Lawton R. Nuss. "It's a great help to our court and we appreciate her contributions deliberating this case."
Before she became a district judge in 2007, Segarra was a magistrate judge for two and a half years. Before that, she was an attorney with the North Central Regional Public Defenders Office, and served as their chief for her last seven years there.
"I am so honored to have been asked to sit with our Supreme Court," Segarra said. "It was a wonderful experience."
All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live through the Watch Supreme Court Live! link in the right-hand column of the Kansas Judicial Branch website at www.kscourts.org. Video recordings of oral argument are available within a week in the Supreme Court's oral argument archive located at www.kscourts.org/kansas-courts/supreme-court/archived-arguments.asp
The case Segarra heard on Monday was:
Appeal No. 114,488: In the Matter of Timothy H. Henderson
Original Proceeding Related to Judicial Discipline: (30-day suspension) Timothy H. Henderson, district judge of the 18th judicial district, previously faced claims of sexual harassment, using the prestige of his office to advance his wife's employment, and improper ex parte communications. It was alleged that at the hearing on these claims, Henderson provided testimony that was: not candid and honest; included unfounded responses to questions posed; and, lacked probity. As a result, Henderson is now alleged to have engaged in conduct that violates Rule 1.2 of Canon 1 and Rules 2.5 and 2.16 of Canon 2 of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct.
After a public hearing, Substitute Panel B of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications concluded that Henderson's conduct violated the rules. It was the judgment of all members of the panel that Henderson's testimony in the prior case: 1) was not candid or honest; 2) lacked probity; 3) demonstrated a disregard for the judicial discipline process; and 4) was an attempt to cover the inappropriate conduct of which he was accused and was found to have committed. The panel recommended Henderson be disciplined for the violations by public censure and a 30-day suspension. One panel member recommended a more severe sanction.