PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT OF JUDGE LISA GUY-SCHALL

The Commission on Judicial Performance has ordered Judge Lisa Guy-Schall publicly
admonished pursuant to Article VI, section 18(d) of the California Constitution and Commission
Rule 115, as set forth in the following statement of facts and reasons found by the commission:
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS
On December 18, 1995, Joanna Slivka appeared before Judge Guy-Schall for a hearing on a
petition for a restraining order against Ms. Slivka. During the hearing, Ms. Slivka began yelling
and acting aggressively, and Judge Guy-Schall ordered her out of the courtroom. While Ms. Slivka
was outside the courtroom, Judge Guy-Schall had her bailiff ask Ms. Slivka if she would be willing
to reappear in court and keep herself under control; the bailiff reported to the judge that Ms. Slivka
had responded that if the judge would not allow her to tell her story, she would probably go off
again. In Ms. Slivkas absence, without citing her for contempt or having her returned to the
courtroom, Judge Guy-Schall found her in contempt and sentenced her to five days in jail. The
order issued by Judge Guy-Schall stated that Ms. Slivka was in direct contempt and was to serve
five actual days in jail. With respect to the facts underlying the finding of contempt, the order
stated, full order and findings are set forth in the reporters transcript that is order [sic] this date.
Ms. Slivka was taken into custody outside the courtroom and remained in custody for five days.
Judge Guy-Schalls actions constituted an abuse of the contempt power. By failing to return
Ms. Slivka to court to inform her that she was in contempt, failing to give her a chance to respond to
the contempt order, and finding her in contempt in her absence, Judge Guy-Schall failed to follow
the required procedures for holding an individual in contempt of court. (See, Ryan v. Commission
on Judicial Performance (1988) 45 Cal.3d 518, 533, in which the commission and the California
Supreme Court found that a judge committed willful misconduct by holding a litigant in contempt
in her absence and incarcerating her, for a remark uttered as she left the courtroom.) The contempt
order entered by Judge Guy-Schall failed to state on its face facts sufficient to constitute a contempt,
as also required by law. (See, In re Baroldi (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 101, 110; Cannon v.
Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal.3d 678, 694.) Judge Guy-Schall, who had
been a judge for ten years at the time of the incident, was obligated to know or research proper
contempt procedures. (See, Cannon, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 694; Ryan, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 533.)
The contempt power, which permits a single official to deprive a citizen of his fundamental
liberty interest without all of the procedural safeguards normally accompanying such a deprivation,
must be used with great prudence and caution. It is essential that judges know and follow proper
procedures in exercising this power. (See, Furey v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1987) 43
Cal.3d 1297, 1314; Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 533;
Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 694.)
Judge Guy-Schall has informed the commission that this is the only instance in which she
has found an individual in contempt. However, she has acknowledged no problems in her handling
of this matter.
Commission members Justice Daniel M. Hanlon, Ms. Lara Bergthold, Mr. Mike Farrell, Mr.
Michael A. Kahn, Mr. Patrick M. Kelly, Mrs. Crystal Lui, Judge Rise Jones Pichon, Ms. Ramona
Ripston, and Ms. Julie Sommars voted to impose a public admonishment. Judge Madeleine I. Flier
voted against public admonishment and would have imposed a less severe sanction. Dr. Donald E.
Vinson did not participate.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

CANNON-V. COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS

14 C J d 678; 122 Cal.Rptr. 778. 537 P.2d 898

679

HEADNOTES
Classified to California Digest of Official Reports. 3d Series

(la-lc) Judges 6RemovalGrounds.When viewed in the light of

the absence of mitigating factors, removal of a judge from office was
called for by the Supreme Court's findings, which were sustained by
substantial evidence presented in hearings before special masters,
indicating that she had engaged in 21 acts of wilful misconduct in
office and 8 other acts constituting conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disre
pute, and that she lacked the temperament and ability to perform
judicial functions in an even-handed manner.
(2)

Judges 1DisciplineSupreme Court's Prerogatives.It is for

the Supreme Court, rather than its appointed special masters or the
Commission on Judicial Qualifications to make the final findings of
fact and conclusions of law in determining what discipline, if any, is
to be imposed on a judge charged with judicial misconduct.

(3)

Contempt 3DefensesAttorney's Absence From Courtroom

Opportunity to Present Excuse.An attorney must be afforded
a reasonable opportunity to establish excuse before being held in
contempt for absence from the courtroom.

(4)

Contempt 6PunishmentDirect ContemptStatutory Require

ments.Compliance with Code Civ. Proa, 1211, relating to
summary punishment for direct contempts and requiring the court
to prepare an order reciting the facts of, and punishment proposed
for, the alleged contempt, is jurisdictional. An order which assumes
to punish summarily is void unless it shows facts sufficient to
constitute a legal contempt on its face.
[See Cal.Jur.3d, Contempt, 72; Am.Jur.2d, Contempt, 86.]

(5)

Judges 1DisciplineBad Faith.Bad faith of a judge charged

with judicial misconduct was established by evidence that in citing
public defenders for. direct contempt, she wilfully failed to comply
with the summary punishment requirements of Code Civ. Proc.
1211, that she embarked on a program by which the defenders were
charged and incarcerated as criminals despite her knowledge that
they would be entitled to be released by extraordinary writ, that she
cited them on grounds she never sought to establish, that she

[July 1975]

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

IN THE MATTER CONCERNING

JUDGE RUFFO ESPINOSA, JR.

DECISION AND ORDER IMPOSING

PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT

This disciplinary matter concerns Judge Ruffo Espinosa, Jr., a judge of the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Judge Espinosa and his attorney, Edward P. George, Jr.,
appeared before the commission on February 1, 2006 pursuant to rule 116 of the Rules of the
Commission on Judicial Performance to contest the imposition of a public admonishment.
Having considered the written and oral objections and argument submitted by Judge Espinosa
and his counsel, and good cause appearing, the Commission on Judicial Performance issues
this public admonishment pursuant to article VI, section 18(d) of the California Constitution,
based upon the following Statement of Facts and Reasons:

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS

Judge Ruffo Espinosa, Jr., is a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. His
current term commenced in January 2001.
In the case of People v. Netterville, BA220480, which was before Judge Espinosa on
October 30, 2003, October 31, 2003, January 29, 2004, and February 5, 2004, Judge Espinosa
denied the defendant full opportunity to be heard through counsel regarding sentencing,
treated defense counsel in a rude and impatient manner, and abused the contempt power by
holding in contempt and immediately incarcerating an attorney who had sought to be heard on
his clients behalf.
Defendant Netterville appeared before Judge Espinosa on a probation violation matter
on October 30 and 31, 2003. On October 31, 2003, after finding the defendant in violation of
probation, Judge Espinosa ordered a diagnostic study pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03.

8
was willing to be swayed. According to the Court of Appeal, however, shortly thereafter
Judge Espinosa said that he had made up his mind, stated that further argument would not
sway him, suggested that he would be inattentive by saying that he would sit and sway in
his chair while DPD Pentz spoke, and quickly interrupted defense counsels argument with a
question about calculating sentence credits, indicating that he was not listening. (Id. [pp. 28,
40].) The appellate court found that Judge Espinosa not only precluded Pentz from
completing his argument, but refused to listen during an earlier portion of that argument.
(Id. [p. 43].) The Court of Appeal held that Judge Espinosa committed a miscarriage of
justice and reversibly erred in violation of appellants rights to counsel and fair trial by
precluding Pentz from completing his sentencing argument. (Ibid.)
With respect to the contempt issue, the Court of Appeal determined that Judge
Espinosa ordered DPD Pentz immediately into custody in violation of the mandatory stay
provisions of Penal Code section 1209(c), which provides that, subject to certain exceptions,
when an order of contempt is made affecting an attorney, the execution of any sentence shall
be stayed for three court days. The appellate court noted that the judge apparently was aware
of the provision, having referred to it when DPD Pentz reappeared with counsel by stating
that he knew he would have to stay the sentence because DPD Pentz was an attorney. (People
v. Netterville, supra [p. 46].) The appellate court also found that when DPD Pentz appeared
with counsel, Judge Espinosa mischaracterized the record of the proceedings leading to the
contempt finding, and later made various material omissions and misstatements in the written
contempt order. (Ibid. [pp. 48-51].) Based on these findings, the Court of Appeal held that
there was a doubt that Judge Espinosa could maintain his objectivity, and that the case must
be remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
Judge Espinosas conduct in this matter constituted, at a minimum, improper action.
By denying the defendant a full right to be heard, through counsel, regarding sentencing, the
judge violated canon 3B(7) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which requires that a judge accord
to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that persons lawyer, full right to
be heard according to law.
In addition, Judge Espinosas treatment of DPD Pentz constituted serious misconduct.
Judge Espinosa held DPD Pentz in contempt in contravention of the mandatory stay
provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1209(c). Further, as stated by the Court of
Appeal, DPD Pentz was held in contempt and made to suffer the ignominy of being removed
from the courtroom simply for doing his job. (People v. Netterville, supra [p. 42].) The
power of a judge to silence an attorney does not arise until after the attorney has had a
reasonable opportunity for legitimate advocacy. (See Cooper v. Superior Court (1961) 55
Cal.2d 291, 298.)
Judge Espinosas conduct also was contrary to canon 2A, which provides that a judge
shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, canon 3B(2), which
requires that judges be faithful to the law, and canon 3B(5), which requires that judges
perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. In addition, the judges treatment of DPD

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

520

RYAN V. COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

45 CaL3d 518; 247 CaLRptr. 378, 754 P.2d 724 [May 1988]

prove bad faith, it must be shown that the judge intentionally commit
ted acts he knew or should have known to be beyond his power, and
that he committed them for a purpose other than faithful discharge of
judicial duties. The test is an objective one.
(7) Judges 6.2Removal, Censure, and Other DisciplineGrounds
Prejudicial ConductThe charge of prejudicial conduct comprises
conduct which the judge undertakes in good faith but which would
nonetheless appear to an objective observer to be unjudicial and harm
ful to the public esteem of the judiciary. It also refers to unjudicial
conduct committed in bad faith by a judge not acting in an official
capacity.
(8) Judges 6J5-Removal, Censure, and Other DisciplineGrounds
Willful MisconductUnauthorized Contempt Procedure.A judge
committed willful misconduct in holding an attorney in contempt for
remarks made outside the judge's presence and after the court session
had ended, where the order was both procedurally and substantively
invalid, the judge was experienced and should have known proper
contempt procedures, and, even after he realized his contempt order
was invalid, he still pursued the matter with the district attorney and
did not notify the alleged contemnor that the matter was dropped
until two weeks later. The conduct of the attorney found in contempt,
a heated discussion with the court clerk, did not rise to the level of
contemptuous behavior, and did not interfere with court proceedings
nor lower esteem for the judiciary.
[See CaLJur.3d, Judges, 62; Am.Jur.2d, Judges, 19.]
(9) Judges 6.2Removal, Censure, and Other DisciplineGrounds
Willful MisconductContempt Procedures.A judge committed
willful misconduct by abusing the contempt power in ordering a bailiff
to take a party in a civil action into custody for contempt after she had
protested his decision, summarily sentencing her to jail for 24 hours
without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and relying on his bailiff
for advice as to the statute to cite in his order. Willful ignorance of
contempt procedures by an experienced judge constitutes bad faith.
(10) Judges 6.2Removal, Censure, and Other DisciplineGrounds
Willful MisconductImproper Sentence.A judge committed willfill misconduct by sentencing a man convicted of driving under the
influence to 30 days in jail, where the judge had told a deputy district
attorney at the pretrial conference he would do so to teach the man's
attorney a lesson for refusing the standard plea bargain and demand
ing a jury trial. The judge also refused to state his reasons for the

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

IN THE MATTER CONCERNING

DECISION AND ORDER IMPOSING

JUDGE JAMES R. WAGONER

PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT

This disciplinary matter concerns Judge James R. Wagoner, a judge of the

El Dorado County Superior Court. Judge Wagoner and his attorney, James A.
Murphy, appeared before the commission on August 31,2011, to contest the
imposition of a public admonishment, pursuant to rule 116 of the Rules of the
Commission on Judicial Performance. Having considered the written and oral
objections and argument submitted by Judge Wagoner and his counsel, and good
cause appearing, the Commission on Judicial Performance issues this public

admonishment pursuant to article VI, section 18(d) of the California Constitution,

based on the following statement of facts and reasons.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS

Judge James R. Wagoner has been a judge of the El Dorado County

Superior Court since 2003. His current term began in January 2009.
On the morning of Friday, July 16,2010, Judge Wagoner was on the bench

presiding over the calendar in department 1 on the second floor of the Main Street

Courthouse in Placerville. At approximately 8:45 a.m., the judge received a report

concerning the conduct of a member of the public named Penny Arnold, who was

reportedly in the courthouse lobby using her cell phone to take pictures or videos
of people in the lobby who were involved in dependency court proceedings in

Fourth, the commission found that the conditions Judge Wagoner placed on

Ms. Arnold's contempt sentence - that she obey all laws and all directives of the
court for one year - were not authorized by law. Punishment for contempt is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a), which provides that a
person found guilty of contempt may be fined up to $1,000, or imprisoned for up

to five days, or both. However, there is no provision in section 1218(a) that gives
a judge the authority to impose conditions on a contempt sentence such as those
imposed by Judge Wagoner, which effectively placed Ms. Arnold on court
probation for one year and continued the court's jurisdiction over her.
Fifth, the commission found that after adjudicating the contempt charge,
Judge Wagoner failed to comply with the proper contempt procedures by failing to
issue an order that recited the evidentiary facts supporting the contempt finding.

(Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; In re Jones

(1975) 47 Cal.App.3d, 879, 881.)
The California Supreme Court and the commission have stressed that "[t]he

contempt power, which permits a single official to deprive a person of his

fundamental liberty interest without all of the procedural safeguards normally
accompanying such deprivation, must be used with great prudence and caution,"

and that "[i]t is essential that judges know and follow proper procedures in
exercising this power." {Public Admonishment ofJudge Lisa Guy-Schall (1999),
citing Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 533;
Furey v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1297, 1314;
Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal.3d 678, 694.)

Ignorance of proper contempt procedures, without more, constitutes bad faith.

(Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 694.)
In determining the level of discipline, the commission found that Judge
Wagoner's conduct in this matter was aggravated by the fact that he used the
contempt power to incarcerate someone over whom he had no jurisdiction. (See

Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 826, 857

6

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

ADVISORY LETTERS
Abuse of Contempt/Sanctions
A judge issued two sanctions orders to a party without notice in the manner prescribed by
law. (Ann. Rept. (2011), Advisory Letter 1, p. 24.)
A judge granted a motion to set aside a dismissal for excusable neglect by plaintiffs
counsel. In the attorneys absence and without providing notice or a hearing, the judge
ordered the attorney to pay sanctions. Also, the minute order failed to specify the reason
for the sanctions. (Ann. Rept. (2011), Advisory Letter 2, p. 24.)
During a hearing at which the opposing party and counsel were appearing by telephone, a
litigant hit the mute button, briefly preventing the opposing party and attorney from
hearing or participating in the proceedings. The judge immediately imposed monetary
sanctions, without providing the litigant notice or an opportunity to be heard as required
by law. (The transcript showed the litigant was seeking to tell the judge privately about
the litigants mental and medical issues that were hampering the litigants participation in
the proceedings.) (Ann. Rept. (2011), Advisory Letter 3, p. 24.)
A judge engaged in an abuse of authority by issuing sanctions without following due
process procedures. (Ann. Rept. (2010), Advisory Letter 5, p. 25.)
A judges conduct in contempt proceedings against counsel gave rise to an appearance of
embroilment and lack of impartiality. The judge did not follow procedures required for
indirect contempt and failed to disqualify from the contempt proceedings when
disqualification was required. In the order to show cause re: contempt and in verified
answers to statements of disqualification, the judge made statements that were factually
inaccurate and that made allegations against counsel appear more egregious. The
advisory was strong. (Ann. Rept. (2010), Advisory Letter 6, p. 25.) [Abuse of
contempt/sanctions; disqualification/disclosure.]
A judge held an attorney in contempt without adhering to the substantive and procedural
requirements for contempt. The judge was new to the bench. The advisory was strong.
(Ann. Rept. (2010), Advisory Letter 7, p. 25.)
A judge held a juror in contempt without following required procedures and displayed
sarcasm toward the juror. The judge later improperly remanded the juror to a lockup area
before adjudicating further contempt by the juror. (Ann. Rept. (2008), Advisory Letter
16, p. 27.) [Abuse of contempt/sanctions; demeanor/decorum.]
In dealing with an alleged indirect contempt for conduct not occurring in the courts
presence a judge failed to provide due process by not giving the contemnor proper
notice of the contempt charge and appointing counsel as required under the
circumstances. The judge immediately remanded the contemnor to serve a jail sentence.

15

The Commission took note that the contemnor was a difficult litigant. (Ann. Rept.
(2004), Advisory Letter 8, p. 23.)
A judge engaged in an abuse of authority by imposing additional conditions to a
sanctions order after the sanctions were paid. (Ann. Rept. (2003), Advisory Letter 9, p.
27.)
A judge commenced a contempt proceeding without affording the alleged contemnor
notice of the charges or the hearing, and gave him an opportunity to be heard only after
finding him in contempt. Because the judge had become embroiled, the judge should
have recused. (Ann. Rept. (2003), Advisory Letter 14, p. 27.) [Abuse of contempt/
sanctions; bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class.]
A judge failed to follow procedures required to sanction indirect contempt. (Ann. Rept.
(2001), Advisory Letter 16, p. 21.)
A judge sanctioned an attorney without affording due process. The sanctions order also
failed to provide the requisite details of the attorney's conduct, on which the award of
sanctions was based. (Ann. Rept. (1999), Advisory Letter 8, p. 22.)
A judge imposed sanctions on attorneys and pro per litigants without notice or hearing for
violation of local delay reduction rules. (Ann. Rept. (1999), Advisory Letter 10, p. 22.)
In a civil case, a judge had a litigant handcuffed for contempt without conducting
contempt proceedings. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 14, p. 27.)
A judge had a prospective juror taken into custody by the bailiff for a short period of time
for contempt without following proper contempt procedures. The judges order of
contempt failed to recite the facts constituting contempt. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory
Letter 15, p. 27.)
A judge ordered a litigant briefly taken into custody for contempt without conducting
contempt proceedings. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 16, p. 27.)
A judge imposed sanctions against attorneys without notice or hearing in two cases,
giving the appearance of embroilment and bias. In a separate matter, the judge
considered ex parte communications during the case. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory
Letter 17, p. 27.) [Abuse of contempt/sanctions; ex parte communications.]
Without notice or a hearing, a judge ordered sanctions against an attorney who failed to
attend a mandatory settlement conference. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 18, p.
27.)
A judge failed to afford notice and to comply with other requirements for issuance of an
order to show cause re: sanctions. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 19, p. 27.)

16

The Commission took note that the contemnor was a difficult litigant. (Ann. Rept.
(2004), Advisory Letter 8, p. 23.)
A judge engaged in an abuse of authority by imposing additional conditions to a
sanctions order after the sanctions were paid. (Ann. Rept. (2003), Advisory Letter 9, p.
27.)
A judge commenced a contempt proceeding without affording the alleged contemnor
notice of the charges or the hearing, and gave him an opportunity to be heard only after
finding him in contempt. Because the judge had become embroiled, the judge should
have recused. (Ann. Rept. (2003), Advisory Letter 14, p. 27.) [Abuse of contempt/
sanctions; bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class.]
A judge failed to follow procedures required to sanction indirect contempt. (Ann. Rept.
(2001), Advisory Letter 16, p. 21.)
A judge sanctioned an attorney without affording due process. The sanctions order also
failed to provide the requisite details of the attorney's conduct, on which the award of
sanctions was based. (Ann. Rept. (1999), Advisory Letter 8, p. 22.)
A judge imposed sanctions on attorneys and pro per litigants without notice or hearing for
violation of local delay reduction rules. (Ann. Rept. (1999), Advisory Letter 10, p. 22.)
In a civil case, a judge had a litigant handcuffed for contempt without conducting
contempt proceedings. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 14, p. 27.)
A judge had a prospective juror taken into custody by the bailiff for a short period of time
for contempt without following proper contempt procedures. The judges order of
contempt failed to recite the facts constituting contempt. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory
Letter 15, p. 27.)
A judge ordered a litigant briefly taken into custody for contempt without conducting
contempt proceedings. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 16, p. 27.)
A judge imposed sanctions against attorneys without notice or hearing in two cases,
giving the appearance of embroilment and bias. In a separate matter, the judge
considered ex parte communications during the case. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory
Letter 17, p. 27.) [Abuse of contempt/sanctions; ex parte communications.]
Without notice or a hearing, a judge ordered sanctions against an attorney who failed to
attend a mandatory settlement conference. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 18, p.
27.)
A judge failed to afford notice and to comply with other requirements for issuance of an
order to show cause re: sanctions. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 19, p. 27.)

16

The Commission took note that the contemnor was a difficult litigant. (Ann. Rept.
(2004), Advisory Letter 8, p. 23.)
A judge engaged in an abuse of authority by imposing additional conditions to a
sanctions order after the sanctions were paid. (Ann. Rept. (2003), Advisory Letter 9, p.
27.)
A judge commenced a contempt proceeding without affording the alleged contemnor
notice of the charges or the hearing, and gave him an opportunity to be heard only after
finding him in contempt. Because the judge had become embroiled, the judge should
have recused. (Ann. Rept. (2003), Advisory Letter 14, p. 27.) [Abuse of contempt/
sanctions; bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class.]
A judge failed to follow procedures required to sanction indirect contempt. (Ann. Rept.
(2001), Advisory Letter 16, p. 21.)
A judge sanctioned an attorney without affording due process. The sanctions order also
failed to provide the requisite details of the attorney's conduct, on which the award of
sanctions was based. (Ann. Rept. (1999), Advisory Letter 8, p. 22.)
A judge imposed sanctions on attorneys and pro per litigants without notice or hearing for
violation of local delay reduction rules. (Ann. Rept. (1999), Advisory Letter 10, p. 22.)
In a civil case, a judge had a litigant handcuffed for contempt without conducting
contempt proceedings. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 14, p. 27.)
A judge had a prospective juror taken into custody by the bailiff for a short period of time
for contempt without following proper contempt procedures. The judges order of
contempt failed to recite the facts constituting contempt. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory
Letter 15, p. 27.)
A judge ordered a litigant briefly taken into custody for contempt without conducting
contempt proceedings. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 16, p. 27.)
A judge imposed sanctions against attorneys without notice or hearing in two cases,
giving the appearance of embroilment and bias. In a separate matter, the judge
considered ex parte communications during the case. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory
Letter 17, p. 27.) [Abuse of contempt/sanctions; ex parte communications.]
Without notice or a hearing, a judge ordered sanctions against an attorney who failed to
attend a mandatory settlement conference. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 18, p.
27.)
A judge failed to afford notice and to comply with other requirements for issuance of an
order to show cause re: sanctions. (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 19, p. 27.)

16

In a public area adjacent to the courthouse, a judge berated and insulted a law
enforcement witness in a case pending before the judge for talking with jurors during a
break. Later, in open court, the judge also made insulting remarks to the prosecutor.
(Ann. Rept. (2004), Advisory Letter 2, p. 23.)
After determining not to pursue contempt proceedings against an attorney, a judge made
humiliating and insulting remarks to the attorney. The judge did not allow the attorney to
address the judges accusations. (Ann. Rept. (2004), Advisory Letter 3, p. 23.)
A judge failed to be patient, dignified and courteous toward a medical witness, and
improperly threatened the witness with contempt. (Ann. Rept. (2003), Advisory Letter 2,
p. 26.) [Demeanor/decorum; abuse of contempt/sanctions.]
While ruling on an attorneys request, the judges treatment of the attorney was
discourteous and callous. (Ann. Rept. (2003), Advisory Letter 3, p. 26.)
A judge made a gratuitous comment about sending a pro per litigant to jail that was likely
to be perceived as a threat. (Ann. Rept. (2003), Advisory Letter 4, p. 26.)
During jury selection, a judge made disparaging comments about jury service, court
administration, and another judge. The judge also made a discourteous remark to a
potential juror. (Ann. Rept. (2002), Advisory Letter 7, p. 23.)
A judge made demeaning remarks and expressed hostility in open court toward an
attorney who sought correction of an inaccurate order. On another occasion, the judge
made gratuitous and disparaging remarks in open court about an attorney, in the
attorneys absence. (Ann. Rept. (2001), Advisory Letter 4, p. 20.)
A judge displayed anger and rudeness toward an attorney in open court. (Ann. Rept.
(2001), Advisory Letter 5, p. 20.)
A judge displayed sarcasm and derision in remarks toward a pro-per litigant in a civil
harassment matter. (Ann. Rept. (2001), Advisory Letter 6, p. 20.)
A judge made demeaning comments to a pro per defendant that impugned the
defendants intelligence. (Ann. Rept. (2000), Advisory Letter 3, p. 21.)
In questioning prospective jurors about their attitudes concerning race in a criminal trial,
a judge repeatedly used a racial epithet and negative stereotypes in reference to the
defendants race, with the defendants apparent consent. The Commission urged the use
of other means to accomplish the judge's stated purpose of ferreting out attitudes of racial
bias. (Ann. Rept. (1999), Advisory Letter 6, p. 22.)
A judge made undignified and sexually suggestive comments to defendants in two cases.
(Ann. Rept. (1999), Advisory Letter 7, p. 22.)

27

improper political activities; ex parte communications; off-bench abuse of office/misuse

of court information.]
While presiding over two related cases, a judge engaged in a course of conduct that gave
the appearance that the judge was embroiled. The judge contacted one litigant at home in
the absence of counsel or any representative and discussed the case. The judge
contended the parties consented to ex parte communications; however, there was no clear
record of the consent of all parties, nor was the consent specific. The judge dismissed
one of the proceedings without prior notice to the parties. The judge treated the attorneys
who appealed that decision rudely, and made a comment in an order that undermined the
integrity of the judicial system. In a separate matter, the judge bought stock in a
company while that company was a party in a case pending before the judge, which
necessitated the judges recusal from the case. (Ann. Rept. (2011), Private
Admonishment 5, p. 23.) [Demeanor/decorum; disqualification/disclosure/postdisqualification conduct; ex parte communications; failure to ensure rights;
bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class.]
A judge publicly commented in news articles on a case pending in another court. The
judge also appointed counsel in a case without disclosing a past professional relationship
between the judge and counsel, and engaged in an improper ex parte communication with
the attorney about the case. The judge also improperly struck a motion to disqualify the
judge for cause, and made comments in an order on another disqualification motion that
appeared to be false, undermining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.
(Ann. Rept. (2011), Private Admonishment 6, p. 24.) [Comment on a pending case;
disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct; ex parte communications.]
A judge threatened to order parties and attorneys to appear at monthly settlement
conferences if they did not agree to mediation, creating an appearance of coercion.
(Ann. Rept. (2011), Private Admonishment 7, p. 24.) [On-bench abuse of authority in
performance of judicial duties.]
A judge had a pro per litigant taken into custody without following proper contempt
procedures. The judge claimed the litigant had failed to follow an order by the judge, but
no clear order was disobeyed. (Ann. Rept. (2011), Private Admonishment 8, p. 24.)
[Abuse of contempt/sanctions.]
A presiding judge failed to take appropriate corrective action after receiving reliable
information about serious wrongdoing by another judge on the court. (Ann. Rept. (2011),
Private Admonishment 9, p. 24.) [Administrative malfeasance/improper comments,
treatment of colleagues and staff.]
A judge issued a peremptory writ of mandate without setting a briefing schedule as
required by law, and before the time to respond to the petition had expired. (Ann. Rept.
(2011), Private Admonishment 10, p. 24.) [Failure to ensure rights.]
2

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COMMISSION
ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE
1992 ANNUAL REPORT

--

--

-- - - -

~---

--~~-~----~-

IV.
DISPOSITION OF
COMMISSION CASES

though the stationery was marked "personal," there appeared to be an abuse of

position.
22. A judge communicated ex parte with one party in litigation about a
pending matter. In an unrelated case, the judge ordered a mental hospital to hold
an indigent criminal beyond the term allowed by law.
23. A judge called an attorney an "asshole" at a settlement conference.
24. A political meeting was held at the judge's house. The invitation stated
that the meeting would be held "at the home of
and .
" and gave
the name of the judge and the judge's spouse.
25. A judge took 11 and 12 months to make certain rulings in two complex
civil matters.
26. A judge persisted in incorrect sentencing practices after several appellate
opinions gave specific direction to the judge on the point.
27. A judge wrote a letter on judicial letterhead to ask a city department to
reschedule the use of recreational facilities to suit the judge's personal convenience.
28. A judge responded to public criticism of a sentence by sending an
explanation to the news media. The explanation was not confined to procedural
matters, but commented on the reasons behind the sentence.
29. A judge invited judges and court commissioners to an open house for a
candidate for non-judicial office. The invitation was on court memorandum
stationery.
30. A judge made rude remarks that suggested bias against a certain ethnic
group. For instance, with no basis other than a defendant's ethnicity, the judge said
the defendant probably was not legally in the United States.
31. A judge made comments to the press which gave the appearance of
gender bias.
32. A judge delayed four months in acting on proposed orders submitted for
the judge's Signature.
.
33. A judge advised a witness in a criminal case to obtain counsel. Afew days
later, outside court, the judge encountered the witness's employer and discussed
the employee's need for counsel. The judge also appeared to advise the employer
that the employer might have certain obligations or liabilities.
34. A judge was sometimes rude to litigants. The judge did not follow proper
procedures when holding latecomers in contempt: In questioning the alleged
contemnors about the reasons for lateness, the judge did not mention that a finding
of contempt was being considered. The written contempt order recited only that
the defendant was late, but failed to recite other necessary jurisdictional facts.

"

16

sending the judge its inquiry letter, the commission does not seek information on the merits
of the complaint. Rather, the commission simply wishes to determine whether the judge
has in place a procedure that provides for review of such complaints and a timely response
to complainants, and if so, whether the complainant in question has received a response.

IV.
DISPOSITION OF
COMMISSION CASES

1. A judge made statements implying that the judge would make adverse
rulings on the merits of a case to punish the litigants for poor courtroom behavior.
2. A judge was ru rl -= to witnesses. The judge said, for instance, that "I couldn't
care less" about one witness's testimony. When an attorney attempted to defend
the witnesses, the judge said, "You want me to laugh in your face?"
3. Ajudge twice amended a small claims judgment dismissing two defendants
after receiving information ex parte from one of the judgment debtors.
4. After ruling but before entry of judgment in a civil action, a judge discussed
the case ex parte with the defendant. The judge gave advice regarding compliance
with the judgment and instructed the defendant that any further litigation bet\veen
the parties should be brought before the judge. In an unrelated case, the judge
ordered the same plaintiff not to appear again pro per on any civil matter. When
the plaintiff complained to the presiding judge about the order banning him from
appearing pro per, the judge wrote a memo to the presiding judge suggesting that
the ruling be maintained in other cases and opining that the plaintiff was trying to
manipulate the system.
5. A judge summarily ordered a party into custody without any order finding
the party in contempt. Later the judge held a hearing and sentenced the party; but
a written order was not properly entered. The sentence included "three years
probation," which exceeds the court's jurisidiction in civil contempt.
6. A judge spoke at a fundraiser for a legislative initiative. The judge made
comments which could reasonably have been construed as indulgent of a certain
kind of criminal activity.
7. A judge wrote a letter on judicial letterhead to television executives to
complain about a proposed mini-series that supposedly defamed the judge's relative.
8. A judge wrote a letter on judicial letterhead to a school to complain of a
teacher's treatment of the judge's child. The stationery was marked "personal" and
stated, "Not typed or mailed at government expense." Nonetheless, its use for a
private purpose was a misuse of the prestige of office.
9. A judge took 98 days to rule on one motion and 126 days on another.
10. Alitigant mentioned in open court that a certain attorney had helped the
party with advice and information, prepared the judgment which the judge was
being asked to sign, and had represented the party in previous cases. The attorney
was the judge's child. The judge made no disclosure of that fact.
11. Ajudge performed a wedding ceremony on aweekday. Afew weeks later
the judge accepted a giftfTom the couple in apparent violation of Penal Code section

94.5.
12. A judge gave the appearance of soliciting contributions from attorneys
and their clients to the election campaign of a candidate for a non-judicial office.
13. At the conclusion of a trial, the judge cited an attorney for half a dozen
alleged acts of contempt occurring during the trial. The judge was obliged to cite
the attorney properly at the time of the conduct. This was not done ..
14