NCJ Number
47397
Journal
State Court Journal Volume: 2 Issue: 2 Dated: (SPRING 1978) Pages: 3-7,30-39
Date Published
1978
Length
13 pages
Annotation
SINCE 1960, 39 STATES HAVE SET UP DISCIPLINARY MECHANISMS TO GUARD AGAINST JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT. THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS MODEL IS EXAMINED, AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION ARE PROPOSED.
Abstract
TRADITIONALLY, THE THREE MOST COMMON PROCEDURES FOR JUDICIAL REMOVAL HAVE BEEN IMPEACHMENT, RECALL, AND LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATION. IN GENERAL, THESE DISCIPLINARY OPTIONS HAVE BEEN USED RARELY AND UNSUCCESSFULLY. ALTHOUGH ELECTION IS OFTEN REGARDED AS A SELECTIVE DEVICE, TURNOVER RATES OF JUDGES IN ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN LOW. A NUMBER OF FACTORS INHIBIT ASSESSMENT OF ERRANT JUDICIAL BEHAVIORS. A MYSTIQUE SURROUNDS THE JUDICIAL OFFICE WHICH INSULATES IT FROM RETALIATORY ACTION. FURTHERMORE, THE JUDICIARY HAS NOT HAD HIGH PUBLIC VISIBILITY IN THE PAST. THOSE MOST LIKELY TO OBSERVE MISCONDUCT ARE WITHIN THE PROFESSION, BUT THEY ARE THE LEAST LIKELY TO REPORT IT. THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION, ESTABLISHED IN 1960, HAS SERVED AS A PROTOTYPE DISCIPLINARY MECHANISM FOR 31 STATES. IT IS A 9-MEMBER PANEL COMPOSED OF 5 JUDGES, 2 LAWYERS, AND 2 PERSONS APPOINTED FOR 4-YEAR TERMS. THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE AND INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE BENCH FOR HABITUAL INTEMPERANCE, MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE, PREJUDICIAL CONDUCT, CONSISTENT FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES, OR PERMANENT DISABILITY. ON THE BASIS OF ITS INVESTIGATION, THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR CENSURE, REMOVAL, OR RETIREMENT ACTION. SINCE 1961, 5 JUDGES HAVE BEEN NORMALLY CENSURED BY THE COURT, AND 57 HAVE RETIRED FROM OFFICE WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMISSION. AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR DISCIPLINING JUDGES, THE SPECIAL OR DUAL COURT, IS IN USE IN SIX STATES. IN THIS SYSTEM, INVESTIGATIVE AND ADJUDICATORY POWERS ARE VESTED IN TWO SEPARATE BODIES WHICH ARE BOTH STAFFED AND CONTROLLED BY THE JUDICIARY. THE LACK OF LAY INPUT FOSTERS SUSPICIONS THAT COURTS MAY BE PROTECTIVE OF THEIR FELLOW JUDGES AND LAWYERS. A JUDICIAL REVIEWING AGENCY MUST PROTECT THE BENCH FROM UNWARRANTED PUBLIC CRITICISM AND SERVE DISCIPLINARY FUNCTIONS. A MEANS OF EVALUATING SUCH A REVIEWING BODY IS TO ASSESS ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN TERMS OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ALONG FIVE PUBLIC POLICY DIMENSIONS: (1) THE POLITICAL AUTONOMY OF THE REVIEWING AGENCY; (2) THE APPOINTMENT OF AGENCY STAFF ON THE BASIS OF MERIT AND THE INCLUSION OF BOTH PROFESSIONAL AND LAY STAFF MEMBERS; (3) THE ABILITY TO ACT EXPEDITIOUSLY; (4) THE ABILITY TO ACT AS A DETERRENT; AND (5) AN AUTHORITY BROAD ENOUGH TO EMPLOY THE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE REMEDY WHEN NECESSARY. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF JUDGES BEING DISCIPLINED AND THE EFECTIVENESS OF THE PROCEDURES, THE NEW DISCIPLINARY MECHANISMS ARE FUNCTIONING BETTER THAN TRADITIONAL METHODS. TABLES ARE PROVIDED WHICH LIST BY STATE THE TYPE OF MECHANISMS USED, THE AVAILABLE SANCTIONS AND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION, AND THE DISPOSITION OF COMPLAINTS. FIVE STATES ARE CONSIDERED. NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (JAP)