Justices Oust Catalina Judge From Office

The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the removal from office of Catalina Justice Court Judge Robert H. Furey Jr., finding that he had repeatedly abused his contempt powers and committed other acts of judicial misconduct.

Furey, 58, a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney and public defender, is only the sixth judge to be removed from the bench by the court in the last 23 years. Sixteen others have received public censure, but remained in office.

The justices unanimously upheld the recommendation for removal made by the state Judicial Performance Commission, sustaining eight charges of willful misconduct and 10 charges of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In a highly critical, unsigned 35-page opinion, the court affirmed commission findings that Furey had been “punitive and vindictive” toward defendants and others in his courtroom, improperly sentencing some to jail in contempt proceedings that were quickly overturned by higher courts.

Furey was not immediately available for comment, but his attorney, Dennis A. Fischer of Santa Monica, expressed disappointment over the court’s action.

“We had hoped that a lesser punishment might have been adopted,” Fischer said. “Judge Furey has had confidence in the process all along and I’m sure he’ll pick up the pieces and go on from here. But obviously, this has been a real blow.”

Under the court’s ruling, Furey, who has been on the bench three years, is not barred from practicing law. He has been suspended from his judicial post since the commission recommended his removal in June, 1986.

The court cited a wide range of actions it found improper during Furey’s one-day-a-week service in the Avalon Justice Court and in temporary assignments in Municipal Courts in the Los Angeles area.

It found that in one instance, Furey improperly offered unsolicited advice to another judge, recommending a stiff sentence for a defendant whom Furey said had a “bad attitude.”

While serving temporarily in Los Angeles Municipal Court, Furey, in the case of a pedestrian who failed to yield the right of way to a vehicle, had held the defendant in contempt in lieu of $10,000 bail after a small paring knife was found in a bag the judge ordered searched.

The judge’s punishment of a defendant he knew was indigent bore “virtually no relation to (the defendant’s) almost trivial offense,” the court said.

On another occasion, the justices noted, Furey advised a group of defendants that if there was a discrepancy between their version of the case and that of a police officer, he would always believe the officer, who, he said, would not jeopardize his career by lying in court.

In another case, he ordered an Avalon woman into court to answer questions about a letter she had written, complaining of his conduct, to the Judicial Performance Commission.

When she invoked her right to remain silent, he threatened her with contempt and said that if she were to be found in contempt, he would recommend a mental evaluation for her, the justices said.

The court rejected the judge’s claim that he had simply intended to ask the woman to retract defamatory remarks in the letter.

“It stretches credulity to claim that summoning someone into court and initiating a contempt proceeding for writing a letter to the commission could be done for a proper judicial purpose,” the court said.

The justices acknowledged that there had been evidence that the woman had been “foulmouthed and intentionally disruptive” in court. But it was the judge’s duty to deal with such problems “by lawful and proper means,” they said.

The court, taking note of the unique powers given judges in contempt proceedings, said such authority should be exercised only “with great prudence and caution.”

Furey had asked the court to impose a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, saying that his conduct was attributable to his initial inexperience on the bench and that in recent months he had attempted to improve his courtroom behavior. Several witnesses before the commission praised his energy and devotion to the job.

But the court noted that, under the state Constitution, it could choose only removal or censure in punishing a judge for improper actions.

“We have no doubt that (Furey) was industrious, but hard work does not mitigate willful misconduct,” the court said.