Judges may respond to clemency reviews requests if solicited
A judge who previously prosecuted a defendant as an assistant state attorney may respond to a request from the Florida Commission on Offender Review regarding the defendant’s clemency application, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has concluded.
However, the panel also cautioned that judges may not provide unsolicited input to the commission in clemency matters, as such communications are not contemplated by statute.
The JEAC acted March 25 in Opinion No. 2026-01.
The inquiring judge previously prosecuted the defendant who is currently seeking an executive clemency review of his death sentence. Pursuant to F.S. Ch. 940, the approved form for executive clemency applications may require notice to the judge who presided over the conviction and the prosecuting attorney of the court in which the applicant was convicted.
Although the inquiring judge has not yet received an inquiry from the Florida Commission on Offender Review, the judge is seeking guidance on whether they can provide input if formally contacted and whether they can provide input in the absence of a direct request from the commission.
The panel noted that Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in subsection B(9) states, in part, that a “judge shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.” However, section C(1) states a “judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice and maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and should cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.”
Chapter 940, Executive Clemency, provides that any applicant seeking review of a sentence may send a copy of their application to “the judge and prosecuting attorney of the court in which the applicant was convicted, notifying them of the applicant’s intent to apply for executive clemency.” Similarly, Ch. 947, addressing parole and conditional release, requires as part of the review for conditional release that notice be sent to the sentencing judge, the chief judge, or a circuit judge selected by the chief judge for a response.
In JEAC Opinion 2002-04, the committee reviewed a similar request under the guidance of Canon 2A that states, a “judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” In that opinion, the JEAC held that when contacted as a part of a Chapter 947 review, the request was specifically contemplated by statute and Canon 2 requires that judges comply with the law and the inquiring judge was entitled to respond to the request.
As for the second issue on whether the inquiring judge may provide unsolicited input, the committee said that would violate Canon 1(B)(9) by making a comment that “might reasonably be expected to affect … [the] outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”
The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee is charged with rendering advisory opinions to judges and judicial candidates on the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to their circumstances. While judges and candidates may cite the opinion as evidence of good faith, the opinions are not binding on the Judicial Qualifications Commission.