## Facts

- Evan W. Broadbelt was a New Jersey municipal court judge serving since 1982 in multiple municipalities.
- Beginning around 1992, he frequently appeared on television (including more than fifty appearances on Court TV) as an unpaid legal commentator.
- Since late 1994, he also appeared on other programs to discuss high-profile criminal proceedings, including the O.J. Simpson trial, and municipal-court topics.
- A county assignment judge required municipal judges to notify him before making television appearances, initially approved two appearances, then withdrew approval and asked Broadbelt to refrain from further television appearances.
- The matter was referred to the Advisory Committee on Extrajudicial Activities (ACEA), which concluded Broadbelt’s television commentary did not conform to Canon 2B and related guidelines.
- Broadbelt petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey to review the ACEA advisory opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether a sitting municipal court judge may appear on television as a commentator on cases pending in other jurisdictions.
2. Whether such appearances violate Canon 3A(8) (public comment on pending or impending proceedings in any court).
3. Whether repeated media appearances violate Canon 2B (lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a municipal court judge’s television commentary on pending cases in other jurisdictions violates Canon 3A(8).
- The Court also held that Broadbelt’s repeated appearances on commercial television violated Canon 2B by lending the prestige of judicial office to broadcasters’ private interests, even without compensation to the judge.
- The Court affirmed the ACEA’s conclusion that the conduct was impermissible.
- The Court directed the ACEA to revise its guidelines to track the text and scope of Canon 3A(8)’s prohibition.

## Legal Principles

- Canon 3A(8) prohibits a judge from making public comment on pending or impending proceedings in any court; the prohibition applies to cases pending outside the judge’s jurisdiction.
- The ban on public comment is categorical as to pending matters and is not limited to proceedings that could come before the judge or to cases within the state.
- Canon 2B forbids a judge from lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others; recurrent appearances on commercial media can confer such prestige by enhancing a broadcaster’s credibility and economic interests.
- A Canon 2B violation may exist even absent direct financial benefit to the judge because the focus is preserving public confidence in judicial integrity and impartiality.
- Judicial educational motives do not excuse conduct that creates a reasonable appearance that a judge is taking sides or trading on judicial status in connection with private enterprises.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that judges may not serve as television commentators on pending cases anywhere and that repeated appearances on commercial broadcasts, even uncompensated, can improperly use the prestige of judicial office; it affirmed the advisory determination and required guidance to reflect the full scope of the public-comment prohibition.


In re Inquiry of Broadbelt, 146 N.J. 501 (1996)