This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A municipal judge engaged in ex parte communications with police officers regarding defendants' demeanor during traffic stops. This included the use of "smiling" and "frowning" faces drawn on traffic citations by officers to indicate defendants' attitudes or behavior. Such conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, October 11, 2000: The respondent entered into a plea and stipulation agreement, admitting to the factual and legal conclusions and agreeing to disciplinary measures (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the respondent's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Recommended formal reprimand and participation in a mentorship program (paras 1-2, 4).
- Respondent: Admitted to the stipulated facts and legal conclusions, agreeing to the proposed disciplinary measures (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Did the respondent's conduct, including ex parte communications and the use of symbols on traffic citations, violate the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- What disciplinary measures are appropriate for the respondent's misconduct?
Disposition
- The respondent was formally reprimanded.
- The respondent was ordered to participate in a mentorship program.
- Each party was ordered to bear its own costs (para 6).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Pamela B. Minzner, with Justices Joseph F. Baca, Gene E. Franchini, Patricio M. Serna, and Petra Jimenez Maes concurring:
The Court found that the respondent's conduct violated several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including prohibitions against ex parte communications and requirements for impartiality and integrity. The respondent's actions constituted willful misconduct in office. The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures—a formal reprimand and participation in a mentorship program—were appropriate to address the violations and ensure compliance with judicial standards. The Honorable Jesse Porter, a retired magistrate, was appointed as the respondent's mentor to oversee the mentorship program and report on its completion (paras 4-7).