According to attorney Jim Murphy, who is defending Superior Court Judge Bruce C. Mills against two counts of misconduct, the CJP — the California body that investigates and disciplines judges — should have recused itself when it received a complaint against Mills from San Ramon resident Joseph Sweeney, who is an outspoken critic of the commission.
“Sweeney has attacked and challenged the commission on several fronts… I think if any judge was put into CJP’s position, that judge is disqualified,” Murphy said. “That judge can’t investigate this complaint, make a determination, or order formal proceedings, which this commission has done.”
A CJP spokeswoman declined to comment on Murphy’s remarks.
Mills is facing two counts of misconduct. The first alleges that he had an improper courtroom conversation with a prosecutor about the DUI case they were handling, and the second alleges that he attempted to illegally double Sweeney’s sentence for contempt of court in a civil case.
Sweeney, the founder of an advocacy group called Court Reform LLC, became interested in legal reform while representing himself in a messy divorce case and growing disenchanted with the legal system. He issued a report criticizing the CJP for failing to adequately investigate judicial misconduct, prompting the commission to issue a response.
Last year, Mills sentenced Sweeney to 25 days in jail — the maximum for five counts of contempt — after finding Sweeney had violated another judge’s order not to disclose the contents of his wife’s cell phone. Sweeney published a blog that was sourced from public court records filed by his ex-wife, but contained a lot of the same information he’d originally gleaned from her phone.
While Sweeney was serving his sentence, Mills directed his clerk to modify the order, revoking the good behavior credits, and fax a copy of it to the jail. But he failed to notify either party in the case, according to the CJP. The CJP says he violated seven cannons from the Judicial Code of Ethics in his handling of the Sweeney case.
In California, nonviolent offenders who are sentenced to more than four days in jail are granted one day off their sentence for every day they go without discipline, effectively cutting most sentences in half. Murphy said Mills was confused about whether that applied to civil contempt sentences, which Murphy called “quasi-criminal” in nature.
In the August 2016 hearing, Mills said twice on the record that Sweeney was entitled to good time credits.
“Well, keep in mind, he’s also going to get good time credits,” Mills said, according to the transcript. He added, “So out of 25, he’ll serve 12 or 13?”
According to the transcript a bailiff responded, “Yes,” and Mills said, “So the reality is he’ll only serve half of it to begin with.”
After the hearing, though, Mills’ clerk inquired whether good time credits actually applied. The judge researched it and determined that they did not, Murphy said.
After the order was modified, Sweeney’s lawyer got involved. He faxed Mills and the sheriff a copy of the original order — which didn’t have the added note revoking good time credits — Mills reinstated the good time credits. Murphy said the judge did that to “Avoid the fight and further appeals and riffs in dealing with someone who has proved himself to be litigious,” referencing Sweeney.
“You’re talking about 13 versus 25 days,” Murphy said. “I think it was, ‘Let’s just give him the time served.'”
Mills has been disciplined five times by the CJP, most recently in 2013, when he was admonished for interfering with a case in which his son was a defendant.
Full Article & Source:
Attorney for judge facing misconduct fires back at California commission
Look at the money being spent here. The judge should resign and save the taxpayers money.
ReplyDelete