A grand jury concluded that Syracuse City Judge Felicia Pitts-Davis discriminated against lesbian couples by refusing to marry them and tried to cover up her actions, recommending that she be removed from the jury.
In a June 5 ruling, the Fourth Judicial District Appellate Division ordered the December 2024 grand jury report to be unsealed. The report was released over the weekend.
“Judge Pitts-Davis exposed her prejudice against homosexuals and her willingness to put her personal feelings above her oath as an official in disregard of the law,” the report said.
In late 2024, Pitts-Davis performed a wedding ceremony for a straight couple, during which he became emotional and shed tears. She then left the courtroom without explanation before the lesbian couple’s ceremony.
Shawntae and Nikola Davis told the Syracuse-based ABC affiliate. WSYR Pitts-Davis barely acknowledged their presence and characterized her attitude towards them as “rude”.
“She looked at us with this look and shook her hair,” the Davises said. “She just walked away, like she was just fed up or something.”
New York state law gives judges the power to perform marriages, but does not force them to do so. However, you cannot refuse to officiate a same-sex wedding if you agree to perform the wedding of a opposite-sex couple.
In New York state, grand juries can investigate public officials for suspected misconduct. At the request of Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick, a grand jury was convened to investigate the Davis family’s claims and determine whether Pitts-Davis engaged in discrimination. The committee heard from six witnesses and considered three exhibits before issuing its report.
The report suggests that Pitts-Davis’ refusal to marry the Davises was not due to a scheduling or miscommunication. Pitts-Davis asked Syracuse Municipal Court Clerk Lucille Matrassi on Nov. 15, 2024, whether same-sex couples attended either of the weddings scheduled for the next day.
Matrassi said one of them belonged to Mr. and Mrs. Davis, and Pitts-Davis claimed that her religious beliefs prevented her from officiating the ceremony. Pitts-Davis allegedly instructed Matrassi to reschedule his wedding with another judge and asked him not to reveal details of the conversation to anyone else.
Matrassi tried to comply, telling the Davises that they needed to reschedule their wedding. However, the couple objected to the change as they had already booked a post-wedding reception. Mr. Matrassi then contacted Chief Clerk Valerie James, who reported the matter to Syracuse Municipal Court Chief Judge Mary Ann Dougherty.
Mr Doherty, who is married to a woman, then came to court on his day off to officiate Mr and Mrs Davis’ wedding. She later testified before a grand jury that she had never encountered a situation in Syracuse Municipal Court where a judge would refuse to marry a same-sex couple.
Based on its findings, the grand jury unanimously recommended that Pitts-Davis be removed from the courtroom. Grand juries do not have the power to remove judges, but the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct can.
However, the Judicial Conduct Commission reported in March that it announced plans to censure Pitts-Davis rather than remove him from office. WSYR. The commission has since defended its decision, arguing that the grand jury report was “outdated” and lacked important context.
“The Judicial Conduct Commission’s 17-page decision to censure Judge Pitts-Davis in March 2026 is based on an extensive investigation that is significantly more detailed and nuanced than that contained in the seven-page grand jury report from December 2024 that was released just this week,” the commission said in a statement to WSYR.
“In addition to hearing from the judge herself, which the grand jury did not hear, the commission reported that she had previously performed same-sex marriages and had promised to do so in the future if no other judge did. The commission’s decision detailed other very important facts about the relevant sequence of events that were not included in the grand jury report,” the commission’s statement added. “Explaining an outdated grand jury report without comparing it side-by-side with more recent and broader commission decisions creates an inaccurate picture of the case.”
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
