Judicial Discipline, Inquiries Set Record

More judges than ever before were investigated and disciplined last year following accusations of misconduct, the state Judicial Performance Commission has reported.

Judges were punished or admonished for a wide range of improper conduct, including one case in which a judge made speeches to jurors in behalf of his own reelection to office.

In all, a record 693 complaints were received by the agency, providing sufficient grounds for 199 investigations, the commission said in an annual report released this week. During the year, 57 private admonishments or letters of disapproval were issued by the agency.

One Judge Removed

The state Supreme Court, at the commission’s recommendation, removed one judge from the bench. Removal recommendations in three other cases are pending.

By contrast, there were 547 complaints, 120 investigations, 38 private admonishments, two public censures and one removal in 1987, the commission said.

The increase, while substantial, does not likely reflect an increase in misconduct among the state’s 1,462 judges, authorities said Friday. More likely, they suggested, the increase was attributable to an expanded public awareness of the agency and higher expectations of the judiciary.

In Orange County, at least five Harbor Court judges have been under investigation by the Judicial Performance Commission.

Carter, Schmidt Cases

Among the most serious inquiries are those involving Municipal Judge Brian R. Carter, 63, who retired last month, and Calvin P. Schmidt, 59. The commission has refused to publicly disclose the allegations, but sources say the two men were accused of giving preferential treatment to friends and courtroom favors to prostitutes in exchange for sex.

Sources also say that the commission is investigating Harbor Municipal Judges Russell A. Bostrom and Selim S. Franklin regarding allegations that they tried to pressure Newport Beach officials into ending a police inquiry of Carter and Schmidt. And the commission reportedly is looking into allegations that Judge Susanne S. Shaw conducted herself on the bench in a manner unbecoming a judge.

Harbor Court serves Newport Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa.

State officials noted that the staff of the Judicial Performance Commission has increased substantially in recent years, allowing more time and resources for investigation of complaints. The number of staff attorneys has increased from three to six in the past 3 years, and the commission’s operating budget has reached $856,000 annually, an increase of 80% over the previous year.

“I think a lot of the increase in complaints has to do with the increase in public awareness of the commission and the fact that it will act against judges when necessary,” said Cynthia Dorfman, the commission’s associate counsel.

Constance E. Dove, executive director of the California Judges Assn., said actions that would have been overlooked in the past now may be regarded as misconduct.

“These days, people seem to be looking more deeply into conduct of judges,” Dove said.

In many of the cases in which the commission issued private admonishments and letters of disapproval, judges acknowledged misconduct and made assurances that it will not reoccur.

‘Teach a Lesson’

Placer County Municipal Judge Richard J. Ryan was removed from office after saying that he wanted to “teach a lesson” by sentencing a defendant to jail for refusing to plead guilty in exchange for not being incarcerated.

The judge said afterwards that he was trying to discourage time-consuming jury trials but later falsely claimed that the defendant committed perjury, according to the commission.

While not revealing the details or the names of the judges, the commission also listed several cases in which action was taken. Among them:

- A judge presided over a criminal case in which the defendant was an acquaintance, making several favorable rulings for the defendant and meeting in his chambers with law enforcement officials on behalf of the defendant.

- A judge seeking reelection made speeches to jurors “which reasonably could have been understood as electioneering” and also published campaign advertisements “which appeared to promise certain rulings.”

- One judge delayed a decision for nearly 9 months while signing affidavits that no cases were pending longer than 90 days. Judges by law are required to meet such time limits in order to collect their salaries.

- In one case, a judge “hinted” to a defendant that there would be a light sentence after a plea of guilty. “In fact,” the commission said, “the judge imposed a harsh one.”