David Brock Impeachment Trial: 2000

The committee interviewed witnesses and debated whether to recommend impeachment of three justices, then decided to bring articles of impeachment only against the chief justice. Following seven hours of debate, the House voted 253-95 for the Senate to try Chief Justice Brock on four articles of impeachment:

Article I. Seeking to influence a case by improperly phoning a lower-court judge in 1987 and failing to report the call to his colleagues who were considering the case's appeal.

New Hampshire Supreme Court justices (left to right), S. Horton, J. Broderick, W. Batchelder, W. Johnson, and Chiet David Brock. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Article II. Engaging in communications with fellow justices, all of whom had been recused, regarding judges to be appointed to hear the divorce appeal of a fellow justice, and discussing the selection of judges, outside the presence of fellow justices, with the justice whose appeal was pending.

Article III. Improperly permitting justices to comment on cases from which they had recused themselves because of conflicts of interest. (This article, while not originated by the Judiciary Committee, was adopted on the House floor.)

Article IV. Lying under oath to the House Judiciary Committee during the investigations of these matters.

Before the trial could begin, the Senate, never having held an impeachment trial, had to set its own rules. It voted on August 22 to require a two-thirds vote for conviction. Since two of its 24 members were disqualifying themselves, a guilty verdict would require at least 15 votes.

As the trial opened on September 18, prosecutor Joseph Steinfield promised that Article I would prove to be "a case of someone being given special treatment." The defense attorney, Michael Madigan, noting that a key witness had said he could be wrong, contended, "We're going to impeach a man on a maybe?" Madigan pointed out that the constitutional grounds for impeachmentbribery, corruption, malpractice, and maladministration—demanded evil intent or personal gain as motives. Those grounds, he insisted, were not evident.