In the early hours of Tuesday morning in Jacksonville, Florida, Georgia Superior Court Judge Robert "Bert" Guy Jr., was taken into custody following a fender bender incident. The event transpired at Wacko’s Gentlemen’s Club, where Guy, 48, inadvertently reversed his Mercedes-Benz into a parked Ford F-150.
According to police reports, Guy attempted to resolve the situation by offering the truck owner $500 to forgo the exchange of insurance information. Eyewitnesses described Guy as "highly intoxicated" and unable to safely operate his vehicle. Club staff members stepped in to help guide Guy back to a parking spot, aiming to prevent any further risk.
The officers who responded to the incident noted signs of impairment in Guy, including slurred speech and watery eyes. Guy declined to produce identification or undergo a breathalyzer test at the Duval County Jail. He faces charges of DUI, DUI-property damage, and refusal to submit to a breath test, and was released on a $3,000 bond.
Following his arrest, Guy self-reported to the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission, the body that governs judicial conduct in the state. He also resigned from his role as president of the Council of Superior Court Judges, stating, "It has been a distinct honor and privilege to serve the Council of Superior Court Judges as President and in other roles; however, today I am resigning effectively immediately as Council President."
Elected as a Superior Court judge in 2016, Guy has served in Georgia’s Brunswick Judicial Circuit. As council president, he represented the state's superior court judges, often during legislative sessions, and participated on the Judicial Council of Georgia.
This incident has sparked a conversation on the accountability standards for judges and other public figures. Guy's actions are under examination by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, with the potential to impact perceptions of judicial accountability and ethics. Opinions on the matter showcase a divide, where some stress the erosion of confidence in the judiciary, while others highlight the principle of due process.
The case underscores the close scrutiny high-ranking judicial officials face when involved in criminal behavior, particularly across state lines. It serves as a stark reminder of the expectations for elected legal officials' conduct, both in their professional and personal lives.
