CHARLESTON – A McDowell County circuit judge who was admonished by the state Supreme Court for briefly jailing two correctional officers for contempt and having them strip searched stands by his decision, saying he was trying to protect an inmate.
Judge Rudolph Murensky II was admonished April 25 by the Supreme Court. According to the filing, a female inmate was transferred from Southern Regional Jail in Beaver to McDowell Circuit Court in Welch for a hearing January 5 by two male correctional officers, both of whom were corporals. The inmate had been involved in an altercation at the jail, and she had two black eyes as well as some cuts and bruises.
Murensky decided to send the inmate to Southwestern Regional Jail in Holden rather than the Southern Regional Jail. He said he had a transport order and asked the two officers if they had “any problems taking her to Southwestern.”
Rudolph J. Murensky, II
| courtswv.gov
One of the officers said he would have to contact a supervisor and go through the chain of command to get authorization for the transfer. Murensky cut him off mid-sentence, according to the filing.
“Well, I have a direct court order here,” Murensky said. “Are you going to obey it or not?”
“I’ll have to contact my supervisor,” the officer replied.
Murensky then ordered the two officers be taken into custody and incarcerated for civil contempt.
“Well, until you do, go into the hands – both of you will go into the hands of the correctional officer for incarceration here for violating a court order and not take her to Southwestern Regional Jail, in violation of this court order,” Murensky said. “Mr. Deputy, take both of these correctional officers and incarcerate them up here and have them come before the court in the morning at 11 a.m.”
Once taken into custody and detained, the officers were required to surrender their weapons, and they were allowed to call their supervisors to relay the situation. They were handcuffed.
They also were strip searched and had their badges, shoestrings, wallets and watches confiscated. Then, they were told to put their uniforms back on and were placed in a cell with six inmates.
When the superintendent from Stevens Correctional Center arrived, he was able to have the officers held in a separate room from other inmates.
In an interview with the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Murensky stood by his actions. He also said he felt “no ill will” toward the correctional officers. The news story also mentions and quotes a response Murensky filed with the Supreme Court to his admonishment.
“I didn’t know the correctional officers,” he said. “My purpose was not to punish them but to compel compliance. If I have to have a Supreme Court admonishment to protect her, then so be it. …
“My motive was pure.”
Murensky said he immediately set a hearing for the two correctional officers for the next morning, but they were released that night when they agreed to transport the inmate to Southwestern Regional Jail.
The assistant prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney in the courtroom that day also defended Murensky, saying the correctional officers had plenty of time to contact their supervisor about transporting the inmate.
“We were there two to two-and-a-half hours dealing with this,” defense attorney Zachary Whitten said, according to the Daily Telegraph. “There was certainly enough time for a five-minute phone call.”
Whitten said the judge had a court order “and they just kept saying they had to contact their supervisor. They had plenty of time to take care of that.”
According to the Daily Telegraph, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Dennie Morgan said there was obvious concern among the judge, prosecution and defense about Owens’ injuries.
“She outlined she had been jumped by inmates,” Morgan said, describing the trauma to her bruised and swollen face as “fresh.”
Morgan called Murensky a thoughtful, professional and ethical judge.
“It’s unfortunate he has to deal with all of this,” Morgan said, according to the news report. “I generally agree with the characterization of him as a good judge. He was acting in furtherance of inmate safety, and a lot of factors were in play that day.”
In his response to the admonishment, Murensky apparently said he believes the complaint against him is “retaliation” for the court asking the assistant prosecuting attorney to report the inmate’s injuries to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and to the prosecuting attorneys in Raleigh and Mercer counties.
“Moreover, I believe the complaint is reasonably calculated and designed to have a chilling effect on the reporting of prison conditions to appropriate oversight authorities by circuit judges,” he wrote, according to the Daily Telegraph. “Additionally, the complaint begs the question of why (the inmate) was transported to McDowell County by two male correctional officers and not at least one female correctional officer. At the very least, these circumstances would make strip searching (the inmate) impossible.”
Murensky said his behavior in court that day as “calm, non-argumentative and matter of fact,” according to the Daily Telegraph. He asked that the complaint be dismissed, according to the paper.
After learning of the incident, leaders with the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation authorized the inmate transfer, and the officers were released to transport her. But, they still were to be in Murensky’s court the next morning for a show cause hearing. DCR leadership as well as an Assistant Attorney General were present for the hearing, but Murensky said he considered the matter moot.
On January 20, Murensky entered an order purging the contempt charges against the officers.
On February 22, DCR Commission Betty Jividen filed a judicial ethics complaint against Murensky, alleging he violated several rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In his reply to the allegations, Murensky said the officers could have purged their civil contempt charges “by immediately complying with my lawful directive that were aimed at protecting the health, safety, welfare and life of (the inmate).”
“Contrary to the contentions in the complaint, these correctional officers always had the keys to their own cell,” Murensky wrote. “The purpose of my rulings was to compel compliance with my directives for (the inmate’s) safety – not to punish these correctional officers.”
The JIC ruled Murensky did violate rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including compliance with the law, confidence in the judiciary, avoid abuse of the prestige of judicial office, impartiality and fairness, competence, diligence and cooperation, decorum, demeanor and communication with jurors.
But, the JIC also said formal discipline was not required as Murensky had no prior disciplinary actions and “his general reputation as a good judge.”
“The Judicial Investigation Commission has no complaint with the respondent’s decision to protect an inmate from further harm,” the filing states. “However, the manner and means with which he went about it were wrong. The commission also has some concerns about the manner in which respondent went about holding the complainant in contempt. …
“The one correctional officer who spoke never said he wouldn’t transport the inmate to a different facility. He merely said he would first have to contract his supervisor. The second officer never said anything. Neither officer said they would not comply with the court order at that point. Therefore, they should not have been held in contempt.”
It said Murensky also didn’t tell the officers what they needed to do to get out of jail.
“Instead, he left that up to his bailiff to perform the task,” the admonishment, signed by JIC Vice Chairman F. Layton Cottrill, states.
Murensky is a McDowell County native, and his father also was a circuit judge. He practiced law in Welch from 1978 to 2000, and he served in the House of Delegates from 1980 to 1992. He was Majority Leader from 1987 to 1990 and Finance Committee Chairman from 1991 to 1992.
He was elected to the bench in 2000 and re-elected in 2008 and 2016, and he was a member of the Judicial Hearing Board for nine years and served as its chairman and vice-chairman.
Judicial Investigation Commission complaint 20-2022
