State high court chastises Phila. judge for altering transcript

The state Supreme Court has removed a Philadelphia judge from a death-penalty case for altering a transcript to remove a disparaging remark she made about the defendant.

In a concurring statement with the high court's April 28 order, Justice Max Baer declared the admitted actions of Common Pleas Court Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes "reprehensible."

Hughes, 55, is scheduled to retire, and is set to become the chief executive officer of the Southeastern Pennsylvania chapter of the American Red Cross on May 16.

In a statement Friday evening, chapter chairman Michael Coslov said the high court's decision "in no way will affect Judge Hughes' ability to be a strong, effective leader for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Red Cross, nor her ability to help those in need."

Coslov added, "The timing of the court's decision is purely coincidental. Judge Hughes interviewed for the position back in February and accepted the position in late March. She notified the governor of her decision to retire in early April, several weeks prior to the court's ruling."

Red Cross spokesman Dave Schrader said Hughes was not commenting on the ruling because she is still a sitting judge.

The condemnation by Baer and the removal order by the high court represented a harsh rebuke for Hughes, who is ending a 16-year career on the bench.

Daniel Dougherty was convicted by a jury of killing his two children in a 1985 arson. Hughes was the judge at the criminal trial and the 2008 post-conviction appeal hearing.

At the February hearing, Hughes called Dougherty "vile." When Dougherty's attorney went to review the transcript, Hughes' comment was missing.

At a March 7, 2008, hearing, Hughes acknowledged that she privately ordered the court reporter to remove that comment and other remarks.

"I told [the court reporter] to [remove] words that are less than judicial, because I'm Southern and I say words like flipping and sucker . . .," Hughes said at the March hearing.

Baer wrote in his concurring statement: "The comments by the judge that appellant was a 'vile' human notwithstanding, to direct privately a court reporter to alter an official transcript, the only vehicle through which appellate courts can ensure the due process of law, is reprehensible and should be condemned universally."

The high court ordered that another judge take the case and review Dougherty's appellate claims, and hold an evidentiary hearing if necessary.

Doughtery's appellate attorney could not be reached for comment.

Baer also noted that Hughes berated lawyers who sought her recusal in the Dougherty case and a previous case.

"If he's entitled to a new trial, I will give it to him. If I am shown that my jury was wrong, so be it," Hughes told Dougherty's lawyer, who argued that her action created an appearance of impropriety.

"But don't you [dare], as long as you live, question my integrity," Hughes said in an excerpt cited by Baer. "That's not for negotiation here or ever."

Baer called Hughes' outburts "obviously inappropriate."

In a footnote, Baer wrote that if a lawyer had altered a transcript, "I have no doubt that this court would pronounce sure and serious discipline on him or her."