According to the Commission on Judicial Performance order of December, 2006, Judge Diana R. Hall of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court was ordered removed from office for willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.
The Commission found that Judge Hall drove a car when impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol level of .18, more than twice the legal limit, resulting in convictions by a jury of driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. The Commission adopted the special masters’ conclusions that the judge’s conduct was contrary to canons 1 and 2A, and that it reflected “a complete lack of concern for the safety of others” as well as “an inability to control her impulses and poor judgment, thereby seriously injuring the integrity of the judiciary in the eyes of the public.” The Commission also adopted the special masters’ conclusion that the judge engaged in prejudicial misconduct, since her conduct would appear to an objective observer to be not only unjudicial conduct but conduct prejudicial to the public esteem for the judicial office.
The Commission also found that during her campaign for reelection, Judge Hall illegally commingled campaign and personal funds, and filed four sworn false campaign statements. The Commission found that the judge accepted $20,000 for her campaign from a woman with whom she lived in a romantic relationship; the judge deposited these funds to her personal checking account and then wrote a check for $25,000 to her campaign. Subsequently, the judge signed under penalty of perjury four campaign statements that did not include the $20,000 she had received, either as a loan or as a contribution; the statements falsely listed the judge as the sole source of the $25,000 deposited to her campaign account.
The Commission found that the judge intentionally omitted the source of the $20,000 from her campaign statements because she believed disclosure of her same-sex relationship would have made her job difficult in the area in which she was running for reelection. The Commission noted that although the judge had admitted in prior testimony at her DUI trial that this was the reason she omitted the $20,000 from her sworn statements, she testified at the hearing before the masters that she “never really thought about” the possibility that listing the $20,000 would result in disclosure of the relationship, and also testified that she considered the $20,000 to be jointly earned and therefore not subject to disclosure. The Commission and the masters rejected these latter claims, finding that the judge intentionally omitted the source of the $20,000 from her statements to avoid disclosure of her relationship.
The Commission concluded that Judge Hall violated various provisions of the Political Reform Act, rejecting her claim that she did not willfully violate the law because she was ignorant of its requirements at the time of the violations. The Commission concluded that by commingling funds, intentionally concealing the source of nearly half of her campaign contributions, and signing four declarations under penalty of perjury knowing they were false, the judge violated canons 1, 2A and 5, and engaged in prejudicial misconduct. The Commission concluded that Judge Hall’s campaign misconduct was unjudicial conduct committed in bad faith by a judge not then acting in a judicial capacity, noting that “in this context, bad faith means a culpable mental state beyond mere negligence and consisting of either knowing or not caring that the conduct being undertaken is unjudicial and prejudicial to public esteem.” (Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1079, 1093.)
Finally the Commission found that Judge Hall questioned a prosecutor about why he was filing a peremptory challenge against her, and rejected her claim that she did not do so. The Commission noted that the judge admitted that she knew she could not question the prosecutor about the challenge. The Commission concluded that the judge violated canons 1 and 2A by her questioning and engaged in willful misconduct, noting that the judge’s conduct was unjudicial, that she was acting in a judicial capacity, and that she committed an act she knew was beyond her judicial power, thus acting in bad faith. (See, Broadman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1091.)
The Commission determined that the special masters properly admitted into evidence a private admonishment that was in effect before the conclusion of the Commission proceeding, as allowed by Commission rule 125(b), and noted that the rule provides that prior discipline is admissible “to determine what action should be taken regarding discipline.” The Commission rejected the judge’s arguments that admitting the admonishment improperly made private discipline public, and that the Commission should only consider discipline for conduct predating the conduct considered in the formal proceedings. The Commission pointed out that Judge Hall had committed the misconduct underlying the admonishment when she knew she was under investigation by the Commission, and had thereby “shown her inability to control her behavior at a time one would expect her to be on her very best behavior.”
The Commission then discussed the facts underlying the private admonishment. In that matter, Judge Hall insisted on being seated in the main courtroom, rather than an overflow courtroom, during arraignment and argument in a high-profile case, so that the prosecutor could see her “no worse off” than before he had prosecuted her for the DUI and other charges. She disobeyed the order of the judge presiding over the case not to enter the main courtroom, and refused to speak to the presiding judge by telephone.
In considering the appropriate sanction, the Commission stated that the case required it to “decide whether a judge who engages in materially deceitful and lawless conduct that undermines the electoral process, and thereafter attempts to explain it away with specious arguments and misleading testimony should continue in judicial office.” The Commission pointed out that honesty is a minimum qualification for every judge, and cited past cases from California and other states in which judges were removed primarily or specifically for dishonesty, including deceptive campaign conduct and subsequent dissembling before the Commission.
The Commission considered in mitigation the testimony of several witnesses who described Judge Hall as a hardworking, conscientious and well prepared jurist. Nonetheless, the Commission concluded that “the judge’s election fraud overwhelms other considerations and compels [its] removal decision.” The Commission stated that the judge engaged in deceit and misrepresentations to keep her position as a judge; dissembled before the masters and the Commission; demonstrated an extreme lack of judgment when she drove while drunk; questioned an attorney’s disqualification of her when she knew this was improper; and showed “alarming disrespect” for the authority of the judge presiding over a high profile case, the presiding judge, and other court personnel when she insisted on taking a seat in the courtroom for proceedings in the case. The Commission noted that the judge’s actions showed “the serious degree to which she is unable to control her behavior.”
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, Ms. Barbara Schraeger and Mr. Lawrence Simi voted in favor of all the findings and conclusions and in the order of removal and disqualification. Commission member Patricia Miller did not participate in the matter.
The Commission also found that during her campaign for reelection, Judge Hall illegally commingled campaign and personal funds, and filed four sworn false campaign statements. The Commission found that the judge accepted $20,000 for her campaign from a woman with whom she lived in a romantic relationship; the judge deposited these funds to her personal checking account and then wrote a check for $25,000 to her campaign. Subsequently, the judge signed under penalty of perjury four campaign statements that did not include the $20,000 she had received, either as a loan or as a contribution; the statements falsely listed the judge as the sole source of the $25,000 deposited to her campaign account.
The Commission found that the judge intentionally omitted the source of the $20,000 from her campaign statements because she believed disclosure of her same-sex relationship would have made her job difficult in the area in which she was running for reelection. The Commission noted that although the judge had admitted in prior testimony at her DUI trial that this was the reason she omitted the $20,000 from her sworn statements, she testified at the hearing before the masters that she “never really thought about” the possibility that listing the $20,000 would result in disclosure of the relationship, and also testified that she considered the $20,000 to be jointly earned and therefore not subject to disclosure. The Commission and the masters rejected these latter claims, finding that the judge intentionally omitted the source of the $20,000 from her statements to avoid disclosure of her relationship.
The Commission concluded that Judge Hall violated various provisions of the Political Reform Act, rejecting her claim that she did not willfully violate the law because she was ignorant of its requirements at the time of the violations. The Commission concluded that by commingling funds, intentionally concealing the source of nearly half of her campaign contributions, and signing four declarations under penalty of perjury knowing they were false, the judge violated canons 1, 2A and 5, and engaged in prejudicial misconduct. The Commission concluded that Judge Hall’s campaign misconduct was unjudicial conduct committed in bad faith by a judge not then acting in a judicial capacity, noting that “in this context, bad faith means a culpable mental state beyond mere negligence and consisting of either knowing or not caring that the conduct being undertaken is unjudicial and prejudicial to public esteem.” (Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1079, 1093.)
Finally the Commission found that Judge Hall questioned a prosecutor about why he was filing a peremptory challenge against her, and rejected her claim that she did not do so. The Commission noted that the judge admitted that she knew she could not question the prosecutor about the challenge. The Commission concluded that the judge violated canons 1 and 2A by her questioning and engaged in willful misconduct, noting that the judge’s conduct was unjudicial, that she was acting in a judicial capacity, and that she committed an act she knew was beyond her judicial power, thus acting in bad faith. (See, Broadman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1091.)
The Commission determined that the special masters properly admitted into evidence a private admonishment that was in effect before the conclusion of the Commission proceeding, as allowed by Commission rule 125(b), and noted that the rule provides that prior discipline is admissible “to determine what action should be taken regarding discipline.” The Commission rejected the judge’s arguments that admitting the admonishment improperly made private discipline public, and that the Commission should only consider discipline for conduct predating the conduct considered in the formal proceedings. The Commission pointed out that Judge Hall had committed the misconduct underlying the admonishment when she knew she was under investigation by the Commission, and had thereby “shown her inability to control her behavior at a time one would expect her to be on her very best behavior.”
The Commission then discussed the facts underlying the private admonishment. In that matter, Judge Hall insisted on being seated in the main courtroom, rather than an overflow courtroom, during arraignment and argument in a high-profile case, so that the prosecutor could see her “no worse off” than before he had prosecuted her for the DUI and other charges. She disobeyed the order of the judge presiding over the case not to enter the main courtroom, and refused to speak to the presiding judge by telephone.
In considering the appropriate sanction, the Commission stated that the case required it to “decide whether a judge who engages in materially deceitful and lawless conduct that undermines the electoral process, and thereafter attempts to explain it away with specious arguments and misleading testimony should continue in judicial office.” The Commission pointed out that honesty is a minimum qualification for every judge, and cited past cases from California and other states in which judges were removed primarily or specifically for dishonesty, including deceptive campaign conduct and subsequent dissembling before the Commission.
The Commission considered in mitigation the testimony of several witnesses who described Judge Hall as a hardworking, conscientious and well prepared jurist. Nonetheless, the Commission concluded that “the judge’s election fraud overwhelms other considerations and compels [its] removal decision.” The Commission stated that the judge engaged in deceit and misrepresentations to keep her position as a judge; dissembled before the masters and the Commission; demonstrated an extreme lack of judgment when she drove while drunk; questioned an attorney’s disqualification of her when she knew this was improper; and showed “alarming disrespect” for the authority of the judge presiding over a high profile case, the presiding judge, and other court personnel when she insisted on taking a seat in the courtroom for proceedings in the case. The Commission noted that the judge’s actions showed “the serious degree to which she is unable to control her behavior.”
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, Ms. Barbara Schraeger and Mr. Lawrence Simi voted in favor of all the findings and conclusions and in the order of removal and disqualification. Commission member Patricia Miller did not participate in the matter.
