Another corrupt jurist gets to keep his retirement.

Judge Danser also lucked out and avoided the scrutiny of Justice McConnell. Lucky him. Had he not finished his proceedings before Justice McConnell began her participation, he might not have been able to still be called a judge. As it stands, he simply can't work anymore. But, who cares, he still gets to receive that hefty benefit package reserved for retired jurists in California; even if he is a crook that fixed cases for friends. In the defense of Judge Danser, it was only traffic ticket cases that were being fixed.


Censure and Bar of Judge William R. Danser June 2, 2005

Judge William R. Danser (Retired), formerly a judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, was ordered censured and barred from receiving any assignment, appointment or reference of work from any California state court on June 2, 2005, for willful misconduct in office. The Commission’s action concluded formal proceedings, during which there was a report by three special masters based on a settlement agreement between the parties. Judge Danser retired on the day the hearing before the special masters was to begin, and stipulated that the charges against him were to be determined based on the transcript and exhibits from the judge’s criminal trial, in which he was convicted of a felony and seven misdemeanors. The judge also stipulated that certain other charges were true, and that at a minimum, his actions constituted prejudicial misconduct; the judge further stipulated that the Commission could issue a censure and bar against him.

The Commission concluded that Judge Danser improperly transferred to his court and then dismissed 24 traffic infraction cases involving 20 different defendants. Many of these defendants (some of whom were members or associates of a local professional hockey team) had a relationship with a police officer who was a friend of the judge’s; others included friends and acquaintances of the judge and the father of the judge’s court reporter. The Commission concluded that the judge’s actions violated canons 2, 2A, 2B(1), and 2B(2); some of the judge’s actions also violated canons 3B(7), 3B(8), 3E(1), and 3E(2). The Commission concluded that the judge engaged in willful misconduct, as his actions in the traffic matters constituted a “corrupt scheme of affording preferential treatment to his inner circle.”

The Commission further concluded that Judge Danser improperly transferred to his courtroom four misdemeanor driving under the influence cases, and that after the transfers, he afforded procedural preferences and imposed more lenient sentences than the defendants otherwise likely would have received. The Commission concluded that the judge’s actions, which were taken to benefit defendants with contacts in the judge’s inner circle, were willful misconduct.

The Commission concluded that Judge Danser also committed willful misconduct when he made efforts to have a local police department dismiss a traffic citation and two parking citations issued to the judge’s son. In telephone conversations and in written correspondence, on official stationery, the judge threatened to retaliate against the police department by no longer “making himself available” to the department; the judge also made misleading and sarcastic comments, and expressed anger. The Commission concluded that the judge’s actions violated canons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(1), 2B(2), and 3B(4), and were taken for the corrupt purpose of obtaining favorable treatment for his son. In addition, the judge attempted to order his son’s parking citations dismissed; the Commission found that this was a flagrant abuse of judicial power and was contrary to canon 3E(1), requiring disqualification in certain circumstances.

Finally, the Commission concluded that Judge Danser engaged in willful misconduct when he denied a deputy district attorney’s request for a transcript in one of the driving under the influence cases he handled improperly, and tried to intimidate her and her office from pursuing the matter by making angry, crude and discourteous comments. The Commission found that the judge’s actions were taken for the corrupt purpose of inhibiting the gathering of evidence concerning his handling of the case.

In deciding discipline, the Commission noted that Judge Danser had agreed that his conduct warranted a censure and bar. Stressing the egregiousness of the judge’s behavior, the Commission stated that its opinion was issued “as an unqualified denunciation of all of Judge Danser’s misconduct in an effort to enforce rigorous standards of conduct,” and for the purpose of rehabilitating public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system “by censuring Judge Danser in the strongest terms possible.”

Commission members Mr. Marshall B. Grossman, Judge Frederick P. Horn, Mr. Michael A. Kahn, Mrs. Crystal Lui, Ms. Patricia Miller, Mr. Jose C. Miramontes, Mrs. Penny Perez and Ms. Barbara Schraeger voted to impose a censure and bar. Former Commission member Justice Vance W. Raye abstained from the vote because he would complete his term as a member prior to the completion of the written decision. Commission member Judge Risë Jones Pichon was recused. Commission member Justice Judith D. McConnell had not been appointed to the Commission at the time of the vote and did not participate in the decision. There was one public member vacancy on the Commission at the time of the decision.

This decision brought to you by San Diego's Legal Resource Directory. Because you should not be afraid of the Law: Fear Not Law.