A U.S. judge has voluntarily resigned following an unusual incident in which he wore an Elvis Presley-style wig and played the musician’s music during court proceedings. Matthew Thornhill, who served on the St. Charles County Circuit Court in Missouri, acknowledged in a resignation letter that his actions compromised the decorum and integrity expected in a courtroom setting.
In his letter, Thornhill explained that he sought to introduce levity during proceedings, believing it could help reduce tension among litigants. However, he recognized that such behavior could undermine the “solemnity of the proceedings.” The resignation follows a series of concerns regarding his conduct, prompting scrutiny from the Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline.
Misconduct Allegations and Resolution
Thornhill faced additional allegations of misconduct prior to his resignation. These included making political remarks from the bench, which the commission determined violated rules of judicial impartiality. Furthermore, he was cited for improperly submitting a handwritten character reference in an adoption case, a practice deemed inappropriate as judges must not serve as character witnesses in matters before them.
Earlier in March 2023, the commission opened a formal inquiry into Thornhill’s behavior. This inquiry led to a negotiated resolution, allowing him to step down voluntarily rather than endure a full disciplinary hearing. Under the terms of his resignation, Thornhill will undergo a six-month unpaid suspension, which will be followed by 18 months during which he can return to the bench before ultimately resigning. Additionally, he will be barred from holding any judicial office in Missouri.
The circumstances surrounding Thornhill’s resignation illustrate the significance of maintaining judicial decorum. Courts are expected to operate with a level of seriousness that reflects their role in upholding the law. While judges may seek to create a more comfortable atmosphere for those involved in legal proceedings, it is essential that their actions do not distract from the court’s primary function.
