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 Magistrate Judge was involved in her son's traffic case, which included charges for speeding and lack of proof of insurance. The judge contacted the sheriff to complain about alleged mistreatment, accessed the case file, communicated with court staff to reschedule hearings, and attended court proceedings. The case was ultimately dismissed due to the officer's failure to appear (paras 2, 6-36).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, April 15, 2003: The Magistrate Judge was formally reprimanded for prior misconduct involving ex parte communications and controversies with court interpreters. She was required to participate in a mentorship program (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the Magistrate Judge's actions constituted willful misconduct, compromised judicial integrity, and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct (paras 1, 7).
- Respondent (Magistrate Judge): Did not contest the Commission's findings but disputed whether her conduct amounted to willful misconduct in office (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Did the Magistrate Judge's conduct constitute willful misconduct in office?
- Did the Magistrate Judge's actions violate the Code of Judicial Conduct by creating an appearance of impropriety and compromising judicial integrity?
Disposition
- The Magistrate Judge's conduct was found to constitute willful misconduct in office (para 3).
- The Court imposed a two-week suspension without pay, a deferred six-week suspension contingent on successful probation, and a $5,000 assessment for costs and expenses (para 8).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Richard C. Bosson, Justice Pamela B. Minzner, Justice Patricio M. Serna, Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, and Justice Edward L. Chávez:
The Court determined that the Magistrate Judge's repeated involvement in her son's case, including accessing the case file, contacting court staff, and attending proceedings, created an appearance of impropriety and undermined judicial integrity. While the Commission recommended lesser discipline, the Court imposed stricter sanctions due to the judge's history of misconduct and the seriousness of her actions. However, the Court tempered its decision based on the finding that the judge did not directly communicate with the presiding judge about the case before the trial date (paras 3-4, 7-8).