The Judicial Conduct Board filed a complaint against Magisterial District Judge Ernest L. Marraccini charging that: (1) Respondent’s findings of not guilty in the Edgewood Borough traffic cases listed before him on the day in question, constituted misconduct in office, failure to perform the duties of office and conduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute, violations of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and charging that said disposition constituted failure to accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, a violation of Rule 4D of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges; and (2) in dealing with the defendants in those cases in the waiting room outside the courtroom, Respondent failed to be patient, dignified and courteous, a violation of Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.

The Court concluded that Respondent’s disposition of the Edgewood Borough traffic cases did not constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution nor of any of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.

The Court did conclude that Respondent’s conduct in dealing with the litigants outside the courtroom (1) constituted a violation of Rule 4C of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges and (2) constituted conduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute, thus a violation of Article V, §18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court held that Respondent was subject to discipline under Article V, Section 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania.

Following a sanction hearing, the Court imposed a sanction of reprimand.