Record Number of Judges Investigated, Disciplined

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

These officials noted further that the staff of the 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 three 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, associate counsel for the commission.

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 by 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.

Placer County Municipal Judge Richard J. Ryan was removed from office after saying 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 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 nine 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 there would be a light sentence after a plea of guilty. “In fact,” the commission said, “the judge imposed a harsh one.”