Opinion ID: 1444402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Count One A: Ex Parte Communications Regarding Richard Henderson

Text: After his arrest on June 26, 1994, Richard Henderson was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana. Petitioner later spoke with Henderson's uncle, who asked petitioner whether Henderson's mother could talk to him about Henderson's case and about helping Henderson with his drug problem. Petitioner replied that she could call him, but advised that she should not discuss the case with him. Henderson's uncle, who is a clergyman, expressed an interest in counseling Henderson. Henderson's mother telephoned petitioner at his home a few days later to discuss her son's case and to make an appointment to see petitioner. She related Henderson's version of the arrest to petitioner. She also told petitioner that her son had a drug problem and smoked marijuana with his father. She requested that her son receive a heavy sentence that included Christian counseling. Petitioner, who knew the case would be before him, told her the district attorney would decide whether Henderson received drug counseling as part of any disposition. Petitioner did not believe the contact was improper because he viewed it as a confidential mother asking for help for her son and he believed that [Henderson] would not even know of the conversation. Petitioner did not believe Henderson was entitled to know petitioner was communicating with Henderson's family members regarding his drug use. During the conversation, petitioner set up a meeting with Henderson's parents for sometime during the next two weeks. On August 2, at the beginning of a hearing on Henderson's case, petitioner met with counsel in his chambers and disclosed his discussion with Henderson's parents and uncle about counseling, and the uncle's desire to be involved in the counseling. He also informed counsel that, because of these contacts, he was out of this case, and the probation department should consider whether Henderson qualified for diversion and counseling. After the probation department prepared the diversion report, but before a scheduled September 6 diversion hearing, petitioner met with Henderson's parents in his chambers. He gave them a copy of the diversion report and the police report so they could see the situation there and the problems that they ha[d] with their son. He also advised them about how to deal with Henderson. Henderson's parents again requested that their son receive a heavy sentence that included Christian counseling. Petitioner replied that he could not order someone to receive Christian counseling. Sometime after Henderson received diversion, his father left a telephone message for petitioner. When petitioner returned the call, Henderson's father stated that Henderson was not complying with diversion requirements. Petitioner then determined that the probation department had not received notice Henderson was on diversion because the minute order did not reflect this disposition. The Commission unanimously found that petitioner's ex parte contacts with members of Henderson's family constituted prejudicial misconduct. Petitioner concedes that these contacts gave `rise to an appearance of impropriety,' could reasonably be considered prejudicial to public esteem for the judicial office, and constituted prejudicial conduct. (See former Cal.Code Jud. Conduct, now Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3B(7), adopted eff. Oct. 5, 1992 [prohibiting ex parte communications].) [5]