Chief Circuit Judge Daniel L. Ballou, who presides over Kentucky’s 34th Judicial Circuit covering McCreary and Whitley counties, submitted a detailed response on Nov. 9 to the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission. He is seeking dismissal of three allegations of judicial misconduct that arose after attorney Kerri Bartley posted a video from inside his courtroom.
Background of the complaint
In August 2025, Bartley recorded a short clip before a court session began in the McCreary Circuit Courtroom. She posted the video to social media with a caption describing herself as “trapped in a musty courtroom” and noting the presence of portraits of “old [white] male judges.” The post suggested the presiding judge would disagree with everything she said.
The commission’s notice of formal proceedings states the video did not name Judge Ballou, but the judge argued it was clear the footage was taken in his courtroom because it showed the portraits of former circuit judges and his own image.
Commission’s three counts
The commission filed three separate counts:
- First count: Ballou allegedly issued an order requiring Bartley to appear in a criminal case involving one of her clients, even though the video was unrelated to that case. The commission says the order lacked an explanation for the summons.
- Second count: During Bartley’s court appearance, the commission claims Ballou interrupted her after she apologized for the video, asked where she attended law school, and warned she might “look into a refund” if she did not learn better than to film in a courtroom.
- Third count: Ballou is accused of drafting and signing an administrative order that barred Bartley from possessing electronic devices—cell phones and computers—at the McCreary County Courthouse and Whitley County Judicial Center before she had a chance to respond.
The commission alleges these actions violate Kentucky’s Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to act impartially and to be patient, dignified, and courteous.
Judge Ballou’s defense
In his response, Ballou raises 18 defenses. He argues the charges were not filed within the statutory time limit and questions the commission’s jurisdiction over the conduct in question. He maintains that his decisions were made in good faith as part of his authority to maintain order and decorum in the courtroom.
Ballou also disputes the claim that he predetermined the outcome before Bartley’s appearance. He says he does not recall the exact moment the administrative order was prepared but asserts it was not entered or served until after the hearing concluded.
Additionally, Ballou challenges the commission’s process on constitutional and due‑process grounds, asserting that the case amounts to selective prosecution motivated by political and free‑speech affiliations. He requests that any sanction be limited to an admonition, and he seeks access to the commission’s full file, discovery rights, subpoena authority, and a hearing before a neutral hearing officer.
Current status
The allegations remain pending, and no finding of judicial misconduct has been made. The commission filed formal proceedings on Oct. 23, 2026, and the case will continue to be evaluated as both sides present their arguments.
Local attorneys and court staff have expressed interest in the outcome, noting that the balance between courtroom authority and free‑speech rights is a critical issue for the legal community in the region.
Original reporting: LEX18 Lexington (local) — read the source article.
