VIDALIA — The Louisiana Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments that could result in the removal of a local six-term judge.

The Supreme Court will review the case after the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana claimed Seventh Judicial Court Judge Leo Boothe committed three violations in connection to a 2002 criminal case.

In the case, Boothe granted a motion to reduce defendant James Skipper’s 25-year jail sentence to 12 years with credit for time served.

The sentence reduction in 2008 came after Skipper argued family hardship in the local court.

Skipper was originally found guilty of cocaine distribution in 2002. He was sentenced to 25 years for those charges.

Before Boothe granted the motion, Skipper alleged that in 2006 Seventh Judicial Court Judge Kathy Johnson gave Skipper legal advice during a phone conversation involving Skipper and his nephew Justin Conner.

Boothe claims he granted the motion, in part, based on Johnson’s communication with Skipper.

“When I learned that the defendant had been manipulated in this fashion to advance the political objectives of others at the expense of his own legal interests, and in light of the previously introduced evidence of his family hardship, the length of time he had already served in prison and the agreement of District Attorney John Johnson, I granted (Skipper’s) motion to reduce his sentence.”

The Judiciary Commission case against Boothe originated from several newspaper articles detailing Boothe’s reconsideration motion for Skipper’s charges.

Louisiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Valerie Willard said complaints are filed to the judiciary commission directly by a citizen, or the commission can also bring forward actions if it becomes aware of allegations through news media or other methods.

Once a complaint is received or entered, a commission hearing officer interviews witnesses and does preliminary investigation before returning a report to the commission, Willard said.

After a report from the commission hearing officer was entered, a formal charge report was filed in Feb. 23, 2011, by the judiciary commission.

The report states that Boothe gave no legal basis for his reconsideration and reduction of Skipper’s sentence.

“In your reasons for judgment filed Sept. 9, 2008, however, you stated that ‘if a judge (Judge Kathy Johnson) corrupts a criminal proceeding for a personal agenda, the defendant, even if guilty, benefits by the misconduct of the judge,’” the charge report said. “The alleged involvement of Judge Johnson occurred long after Skipper’s sentence became executory and her alleged after-the-fact involvement did not provide a legal basis for the reconsideration and reduction of Skipper’s sentence.”

A hearing regarding the charges alleged in the report was conducted Aug. 3-5, 2011, before Judge Ulysses Thibodeaux of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, according to the judiciary commission’s case report.

Witnesses subpoenaed for questioning in that hearing included Johnson, Skipper and Conner among others.

After the initial hearing, Boothe appeared before the members of the commission on May 18, 2012, for questioning and to make a statement about the case.

During that hearing, Boothe said he didn’t believe he engaged in unethical conduct by holding a hearing on an untimely motion for reconsideration or by granting it, the report said.

“If I’m disbarred or kicked out or whatever, defrocked, I would not change what I did that day because that man deserved justice,” Boothe said during the hearing. “And he wasn’t going to get it from a judge that didn’t know what was going on … to me it was a no-brainer.

“An absolute no-brainer.”

At the conclusion of the commission’s questioning of the witnesses, Boothe was allowed to address the commission and made several statements to demonstrate his lack of remorse for his conduct, the report said.

“I don’t need this job,” Boothe said. “My lawyers told me resign immediately.”

After the hearings, the commission stated that Boothe committed the following violations:

•Holding the reconsideration hearing without jurisdiction.

“Boothe scheduled and conducted the reconsideration hearing, granted the reconsideration motion and commented at length, both orally and in writing, concerning the transcripts of Skipper’s telephone conversations as a means of tarnishing Johnson’s reputation and rehabilitated his own,” the report said.

•Failing to recuse himself.

“Boothe was biased, prejudiced and personally interested in the cause to such an extent that he was unable to conduct a fair and impartial trial,” the report stated.

•Engaging in improper ex parte communications.

The report states that Boothe engaged in several impermissible ex parte communications with Skipper via letters sent, which he did not file with the district attorney’s office, to and from both parties in 2008 while Skipper was in jail.

“Boothe clearly knew the proper course of action in dealing with unsolicited correspondence from a party was to file the copy of the communication into the record and provide a copy to the other side,” the report said. “His failure to follow the proper course of action was deliberate and knowing.”

The commission recommended in its report to the Louisiana Supreme Court on Aug. 7 that Boothe be removed from the bench and be ordered to reimburse and pay to the commission $11,731.79.

In the Supreme Court hearing set for Sept. 7, Willard said Boothe and the commission will both have an opportunity to present oral arguments.

“They rarely rule from the bench, so they’ll take in everything thing and think about it before making a ruling,” Willard said. “And just because the commission recommends something, doesn’t mean that’s what the court is going to do.”

During all judiciary commission court proceedings, a confidentially agreement is put in place to protect judges’ reputation, Willard said.

Once the judiciary commission report is filed and becomes public record, the confidentially is lifted.

Earlier this week, Boothe launched a website, www.leoboothe.com, featuring his explanation of the Skipper case, the commission’s findings and his working relationship with Johnson.

Boothe said he felt wronged by one of the commission hearings during which the commission called and interview witnesses, but he wasn’t allowed to do the same.

“I wasn’t allowed to call any witnesses nor question the witnesses called against me by the commission, or object to any question or testimony provided by the witnesses called against me,” Boothe said. “If the commission is going to conduct a hearing, they should have observed due process.”

The initial hearing under Thibodeaux is when formal charges are first heard, witnesses are called and due process takes place, Willard said.

Boothe claims that the commission hearing and rejection of the unbiased hearing officer’s recommendation is linked to Judge Sharon Marchman of Monroe who was appointed to the commission.

Boothe claims that Marchman and Johnson shared a number of private conversations in which Johnson discussed her dissatisfaction that Boothe was chief judge in the Seventh Judicial Court and accused him of engaging in various activities intended to damage her politically.

Marchman testified during the judiciary commission hearing that it was “general information in the community” that Boothe was opposed to Johnson politically.

“I have always been under the impression that Judge Boothe and the DA and the sheriff were all aligned politically and they were all against Judge Johnson,” Marchman testified. “That just comes from general courthouse talk.”

Johnson said Friday that she and Marchman served as drug court officers together at one time, but denies the close relationship she said Boothe alleges on his website.

“I think she and I have ate lunch together once and even then someone else was there,” Johnson said. “He makes it sounds like we’re best friends.”

Johnson said Boothe’s claims that Marchman instigated the commission’s investigation are also false.

“First of all, Sharon (Marchman) wasn’t on the judiciary commission that heard the case,” Johnson said. “I think that Boothe has lost the respect of a lot of people, and I don’t think the Supreme Court is too happy with him.”

The judiciary commission’s report states that Boothe “has a long and troubling disciplinary history with the commission” and that he has been the subject of several prior disciplinary complaints to the commission that resulted in private action by the commission.