Panel Urged to Keep Judge Off the Bench

Determined not to let Judge Robert C. Bradley return to the bench, state prosecutors filed court papers this week asking the Commission on Judicial Performance to “protect” the public by barring him from any future service.

A Ventura County jurist for 15 years, Bradley saw his career fall apart last year after he was arrested twice for drunk driving and four more times for alcohol-related probation violations.

In December, a three-judge panel concluded that Bradley’s conduct--including an incident in which he showed up to work intoxicated--violated the ethics of his profession and brought disrepute to the judiciary.

But what punishment should be meted out to the 58-year-old judge, who is now retired, remains in question.

Bradley’s attorney argued in a separate brief filed this week that Bradley should be publicly censured but allowed to occasionally hear cases as a fill-in judge.

Lawyers with the prosecuting arm of the Commission on Judicial Performance also want Bradley censured, but they contend that his conduct last year should further prohibit him from ever hearing cases again.

Examiner William Smith argued that Bradley’s removal from office would be the most appropriate remedy. But since Bradley’s term expired in December and he did not seek reelection, that is not an option.

“By violating the law he was sworn to uphold, and failing to perform as a judge during his term of office,” Smith concluded, “[Bradley] has forfeited the right to sit as a judge in the future.”

But Bradley’s attorney, Thomas C. Brayton of Claremont, said the judge is now sober and capable of handling any temporary assignment. He argued that Bradley’s early actions, while embarrassing to the bench, should not preclude him from future service.

To make his point, Brayton noted that in the past 35 years there have been only 12 decisions in which California judges were removed from office for misconduct.

Brayton cited those cases, which involved corruption, dishonesty, favoritism or lewd conduct on the bench, in his brief. He argued that by comparison, Bradley’s arrests, while embarrassing, do not warrant more than censure.

The cases Brayton cited included a 1973 incident in which a judge prodded a public defender with a sex toy, and one in which a judge sought preferential treatment from the district attorney for a friend.

Another removal involved a 1983 case in which a judge uttered sexual and ethnic slurs in court, and a fourth involved a judge who, among other things, improperly directed a jury in a criminal case to find the defendant guilty.

“In this case, Judge Bradley is not before the commission because he was a judge displaying moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption,” Brayton wrote. “Rather, he is before the commission because of a condition of alcoholism, which he has been able to control with proper diagnosis and therapy.”

Earlier this month, Bradley stated in a sworn declaration that he has not taken a drink since August and would be capable of sitting on temporary assignment.

He told the commission that he is now holding down a full-time job, continuing counseling and participating in an outpatient program for alcoholics.

But in his brief this week, Smith responded by arguing that the judge’s current actions are irrelevant because the issue before the commission is what discipline should be handed down because of his conduct last year.

Both sides have one last opportunity to file briefs on the case next week. A hearing before the commission is expected in May or June. A final ruling is expected a week to a month after the hearing.