Post by Shuftin on Jul 26, 2006 12:01:14 GMT -5
Judge Kevin A. Ross of the Los Angeles County Superior Court was ordered removed from office by the Commission for willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. . The Commission’s action concluded formal proceedings, during which there was a hearing before special masters and an appearance before the Commission.
The Commission first determined that the judge engaged in misconduct in connection with four criminal cases.
In one matter, a defendant who had two traffic citations submitted a declaration asserting that she was not the person cited. Judge Ross told her that he thought she was lying, added a misdemeanor charge of knowingly providing false insurance information in each traffic case, set bail at $2,500 in each case, summarily remanded the defendant to custody, and set her next court date 30 days in the future; the defendant testified that the judge said she was going to custody for 30 days. The judge also entered a “not guilty” plea for the defendant, but did not arraign her and did not notify the prosecutor or the public defender that he had added the misdemeanor charge. The defendant remained in custody for two and a half days; she was then released after posting bail. In Commission proceedings, Judge Ross made a number of unconvincing excuses and false statements in an effort to mislead the special masters and the Commission.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross engaged in willful misconduct. The judge’s actions toward the defendant were in bad faith because he acted out of pique, irritation or impatience; alternatively or additionally, the judge acted beyond his lawful authority, either with knowledge that his actions were beyond his authority or with conscious disregard for the limits of his authority. In addition, the Commission found that the judge’s knowing disregard of fundamental rights and abuse of authority were part of a pattern that rendered the judge unfit for the bench.
In another matter, Judge Ross telephoned a defendant charged with misdemeanor drug offenses and had an ex parte conversation with her. The Commission found that this was improper action. The Commission rejected the judge’s claim that his call was justified by an emergency, and found that his claim that he promptly notified counsel of the call was false. The Commission found that Judge Ross made notes on a computer-generated printout of court minutes in an attempt to buttress his defense, and then used that altered document, first, to attempt to mislead his supervising judges and then to assert a false defense in Commission proceedings.
In a third matter, Judge Ross presided over the case of a defendant who had been placed on diversion on misdemeanor charges of violating zoning and other municipal ordinances in connection with holding religious services in his home. The prosecutor said that the defendant had not complied with the diversion agreement and that he wished to proceed with criminal charges. He also asked the judge to immediately enter an order prohibiting the defendant from holding religious services. Judge Ross informed the defendant of his right to legal representation, and the defendant said that he would need to seek legal representation. Despite this unambiguous request for counsel, Judge Ross asked the defendant a series of questions bearing on the requested order and the criminal charges, and accused the defendant of lying to him. The judge eventually obtained incriminating admissions from the defendant, after which he entered a not-guilty plea for the defendant and told him that he needed to get a lawyer.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross engaged in willful misconduct. The Commission determined that the judge intentionally violated the defendant’s constitutional rights, and displayed manifest embroilment and lack of impartiality.
In a fourth case, Judge Ross refused to conduct a probation violation hearing, stating that he already had found the defendant in violation of probation and would proceed to sentencing. After the defendant’s public defender had a heated exchange with the judge and was removed from the courtroom, the judge continued with the sentencing proceedings. Another public defender who was in the courtroom stated his appearance, but the Commission determined that neither he nor the judge understood him to have replaced the public defender who had been representing the defendant or to have been in a position to provide effective representation of the defendant. The judge addressed the defendant directly, and accused him of being a pathological liar. The matter was continued to the afternoon. The next day, after being told that the public defender’s office intended to boycott his courtroom, Judge Ross set a formal probation violation hearing in the case.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross committed willful misconduct. The judge presumptively knew, through his experience as a prosecutor, that a defendant in a probation violation case has a right to a hearing, and the defendant’s lawyer insisted on that right. Therefore, the Commission concluded, Judge Ross intentionally disregarded the defendant’s fundamental rights or knowingly acted beyond his judicial power or with a conscious disregard for the limits of his authority. Alternatively or additionally, the Commission determined that the judge displayed embroilment evidencing anger, pique, revenge or other improper purpose.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross violated canon 3B(9) and engaged in prejudicial misconduct when he revealed confidential information about a juvenile case while appearing on a local public television program, and when he discussed a pending appellate case during another appearance on the same show.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross engaged in willful misconduct and violated canons 1, 2A, 2B(2), 4A(2), 4D(1)(a), and 4D(2) when he acted as a private arbitrator during filming of a pilot television program for a possible new series to be called Mobile Court. The Commission concluded that the judge committed willful misconduct when he served as an arbitrator because he was acting in a judicial capacity. The Commission rejected the judge’s claim that he did not know he was acting as an arbitrator, noting that he had signed two documents entitled “Arbitrator’s Award” after filming was complete. The Commission noted that the judge’s patent attempts at avoidance of responsibility and his act of providing a false story that he had signed the arbitration awards before the filming demonstrated a serious lack of candor and accountability.
In deciding discipline, the Commission noted that Judge Ross had engaged in repeated wrongdoing, that he had displayed a pervasive lack of candor and accountability and that he previously had been disciplined for similar misconduct. The Commission pointed out that honesty is a “minimum qualification” expected of every judge, and that Judge Ross had fabricated stories and attempted to mislead the Commission. The Commission also noted that the judge’s behavior suggested a strong likelihood of future violations, and that his conduct besmirched the reputation of the judiciary. The Commission concluded that the appropriate discipline was removal from office.
Commission members Mr. Marshall B. Grossman, Judge Frederick P. Horn, Mr. Michael A. Kahn, Mrs. Crystal Lui, Justice Judith D. McConnell, Mr. Jose C. Miramontes, Mrs. Penny Perez, Judge Risë Jones Pichon, and Ms. Barbara Schraeger voted in favor of all the findings and conclusions and the order of removal of Judge Ross. Commission member Ms. Patricia Miller was recused, and Commission member Mr. Lawrence Simi did not participate.
The Commission first determined that the judge engaged in misconduct in connection with four criminal cases.
In one matter, a defendant who had two traffic citations submitted a declaration asserting that she was not the person cited. Judge Ross told her that he thought she was lying, added a misdemeanor charge of knowingly providing false insurance information in each traffic case, set bail at $2,500 in each case, summarily remanded the defendant to custody, and set her next court date 30 days in the future; the defendant testified that the judge said she was going to custody for 30 days. The judge also entered a “not guilty” plea for the defendant, but did not arraign her and did not notify the prosecutor or the public defender that he had added the misdemeanor charge. The defendant remained in custody for two and a half days; she was then released after posting bail. In Commission proceedings, Judge Ross made a number of unconvincing excuses and false statements in an effort to mislead the special masters and the Commission.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross engaged in willful misconduct. The judge’s actions toward the defendant were in bad faith because he acted out of pique, irritation or impatience; alternatively or additionally, the judge acted beyond his lawful authority, either with knowledge that his actions were beyond his authority or with conscious disregard for the limits of his authority. In addition, the Commission found that the judge’s knowing disregard of fundamental rights and abuse of authority were part of a pattern that rendered the judge unfit for the bench.
In another matter, Judge Ross telephoned a defendant charged with misdemeanor drug offenses and had an ex parte conversation with her. The Commission found that this was improper action. The Commission rejected the judge’s claim that his call was justified by an emergency, and found that his claim that he promptly notified counsel of the call was false. The Commission found that Judge Ross made notes on a computer-generated printout of court minutes in an attempt to buttress his defense, and then used that altered document, first, to attempt to mislead his supervising judges and then to assert a false defense in Commission proceedings.
In a third matter, Judge Ross presided over the case of a defendant who had been placed on diversion on misdemeanor charges of violating zoning and other municipal ordinances in connection with holding religious services in his home. The prosecutor said that the defendant had not complied with the diversion agreement and that he wished to proceed with criminal charges. He also asked the judge to immediately enter an order prohibiting the defendant from holding religious services. Judge Ross informed the defendant of his right to legal representation, and the defendant said that he would need to seek legal representation. Despite this unambiguous request for counsel, Judge Ross asked the defendant a series of questions bearing on the requested order and the criminal charges, and accused the defendant of lying to him. The judge eventually obtained incriminating admissions from the defendant, after which he entered a not-guilty plea for the defendant and told him that he needed to get a lawyer.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross engaged in willful misconduct. The Commission determined that the judge intentionally violated the defendant’s constitutional rights, and displayed manifest embroilment and lack of impartiality.
In a fourth case, Judge Ross refused to conduct a probation violation hearing, stating that he already had found the defendant in violation of probation and would proceed to sentencing. After the defendant’s public defender had a heated exchange with the judge and was removed from the courtroom, the judge continued with the sentencing proceedings. Another public defender who was in the courtroom stated his appearance, but the Commission determined that neither he nor the judge understood him to have replaced the public defender who had been representing the defendant or to have been in a position to provide effective representation of the defendant. The judge addressed the defendant directly, and accused him of being a pathological liar. The matter was continued to the afternoon. The next day, after being told that the public defender’s office intended to boycott his courtroom, Judge Ross set a formal probation violation hearing in the case.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross committed willful misconduct. The judge presumptively knew, through his experience as a prosecutor, that a defendant in a probation violation case has a right to a hearing, and the defendant’s lawyer insisted on that right. Therefore, the Commission concluded, Judge Ross intentionally disregarded the defendant’s fundamental rights or knowingly acted beyond his judicial power or with a conscious disregard for the limits of his authority. Alternatively or additionally, the Commission determined that the judge displayed embroilment evidencing anger, pique, revenge or other improper purpose.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross violated canon 3B(9) and engaged in prejudicial misconduct when he revealed confidential information about a juvenile case while appearing on a local public television program, and when he discussed a pending appellate case during another appearance on the same show.
The Commission concluded that Judge Ross engaged in willful misconduct and violated canons 1, 2A, 2B(2), 4A(2), 4D(1)(a), and 4D(2) when he acted as a private arbitrator during filming of a pilot television program for a possible new series to be called Mobile Court. The Commission concluded that the judge committed willful misconduct when he served as an arbitrator because he was acting in a judicial capacity. The Commission rejected the judge’s claim that he did not know he was acting as an arbitrator, noting that he had signed two documents entitled “Arbitrator’s Award” after filming was complete. The Commission noted that the judge’s patent attempts at avoidance of responsibility and his act of providing a false story that he had signed the arbitration awards before the filming demonstrated a serious lack of candor and accountability.
In deciding discipline, the Commission noted that Judge Ross had engaged in repeated wrongdoing, that he had displayed a pervasive lack of candor and accountability and that he previously had been disciplined for similar misconduct. The Commission pointed out that honesty is a “minimum qualification” expected of every judge, and that Judge Ross had fabricated stories and attempted to mislead the Commission. The Commission also noted that the judge’s behavior suggested a strong likelihood of future violations, and that his conduct besmirched the reputation of the judiciary. The Commission concluded that the appropriate discipline was removal from office.
Commission members Mr. Marshall B. Grossman, Judge Frederick P. Horn, Mr. Michael A. Kahn, Mrs. Crystal Lui, Justice Judith D. McConnell, Mr. Jose C. Miramontes, Mrs. Penny Perez, Judge Risë Jones Pichon, and Ms. Barbara Schraeger voted in favor of all the findings and conclusions and the order of removal of Judge Ross. Commission member Ms. Patricia Miller was recused, and Commission member Mr. Lawrence Simi did not participate.