Opinion ID: 7347069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Uncharged Incidents

Text: The masters found that Judge Saucedo engaged in willful misconduct with respect to two incidents that were not charged in the Notice. The first concerned the judge’s meeting in chambers with Tovar to discuss the anonymous letter on the late afternoon of Friday, September 20. In response to inquiries about why Tovar did not clock out until after 5:00 p.m., Judge Saucedo sent an e-mail to Tovar’s supervisor stating he wanted to confirm Tovar worked after 5:00 p.m. at his request and they were working on orders concerning inmate prescriptions. The examiner presented evidence refuting that they were working on prescription orders or other court matters during this after-hours meeting. The judge did not object to the introduction of this evidence at the hearing. The second incident involved an incident report filed by Sheriffs Deputy Scott Ballantyne, a court bailiff. Judge Saucedo introduced evidence that Tovar was disciplined based on a report submitted by Ballantyne concerning a delayed release of a prisoner as a result of Tovar’s clerical error. Upon learning of this report, Judge Saucedo banished Ballantyne from his courtroom during a proceeding and recommended that Ballantyne be terminated. The examiner requests that the commission not adopt the masters’ legal conclusion that the judge engaged in willful misconduct with respect to these incidents because they were not charged in the Notice. We concur and do not reach conclusions as to whether the judge engaged in misconduct with respect to either incident or consider them as a basis for discipline. (See Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal.3d 678, 695-696 [122 Cal.Rptr. 778, 537 P.2d 898] (Cannon); rule 128(a).) Judge Saucedo argues that “the Examiner presenting evidence on these topics that were not contained in the Notice cannot be cured by the Examiner now rejecting those findings. . . . [T]he Commission must consider what impact this fundamentally unfair and prejudicial actions [s/c] had on the entirety of the Special Masters’ Findings when deciding on the appropriate level of discipline in this matter.” Significantly, Judge Saucedo raised this argument for the first time in his response brief to the commission, after the issue of the masters reaching legal conclusions based on conduct not charged in the Notice was raised by the examiner in his opening brief. There is no reasonable possibility that the incidents concerning Ballantyne and overtime pay influenced the masters’ findings on the far more serious charges concerning the anonymous letter and the inappropriate gifts to Tovar. In their 110-page report, the masters gave detailed and distinct support for their findings and conclusions on each charged incident. Furthermore, it was the judge, not the examiner, who introduced the Ballantyne incident into the proceedings, and he did not object to the introduction of evidence concerning the overtime incident. Thus, we reject the judge’s contention that he was prejudiced by the introduction of evidence on these incidents. y. DISCIPLINE In determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction, we consider the purpose of commission disciplinary proceedings, which, as stated by the Supreme Court, “is not punishment, but rather the protection of the public, the enforcement of rigorous standards of judicial conduct, and the maintenance of public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system.” (Adams II, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 912.) Adherence to these objectives compels our decision to remove Judge Saucedo from office. He engaged in a calculated course of egregious misconduct involving dishonesty and subterfuge that seriously undermines the integrity of the judiciary and falls exceedingly short of the rigorous standards to which the judiciary is held. The commission has identified several factors to consider in determining the appropriate sanction, including the judge’s honesty and integrity, the number of acts and seriousness of the misconduct, whether the judge appreciates the impropriety of the conduct, the likelihood of future misconduct, the impact of the misconduct on the judicial system, and the existence of prior discipline. (Inquiry Concerning McBrien (2010) No. 185, Decision and Order Imposing Public Censure, pp. 29-33 [49 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 315, 342-345]; see Inquiry Concerning Van Voorhis (2003) No. 165, Decision and Order Removing Judge from Office, p. 31 [48 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 257, 295]; see also Policy Declarations of Com. on Jud. Performance, policy 7.1.) Foremost in our consideration of these factors is honesty and integrity. The Supreme Court stated that honesty is a “minimum qualification[]” that is “expected of every judge.” (Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 826, 865 [264 Cal.Rptr. 100, 782 P.2d 239].) Judge Saucedo’s misconduct demonstrates a profound lack of veracity and integrity—tie created a false, sexually explicit letter; lied to Tovar about the source of the letter and having intercepted the letter; and told Tovar to lie to her family, friends and court administration, all for the corrupt purpose of manipulating a subordinate employee into having a closer “emotional” relationship with him. Moreover, his deception did not stop when his conduct was reported, but continued throughout these proceedings. The masters stated, “Judge Saucedo was not truthful in the investigation or at the hearing. He refused to admit important documented facts, failed to answer direct questions, and made affirmative misrepresentations.” The Supreme Court has said there are few actions that “provide greater justification for removal from office than . . . deliberately providing false information to the Commission in the course of its investigation . . . .” (Adams II, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 914.) We take particularly seriously a judge’s willingness to lie under oath to the three special masters appointed by the Supreme Court to make factual findings critical to our decision. In removing Judge Kelly MacEachern for misconduct involving dishonesty compounded by untruthful testimony before the special masters, we stated, “In seeking the truth, our justice system relies on the integrity of the oath. A judge who does not honor the oath to tell the truth cannot be entrusted with judging the credibility of others.” (Inquiry Concerning MacEachern (2008) No. 184, Decision and Order Removing Judge from Office, p. 21 [49 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 289, 309] (MacEachern).) Judge MacEachern’s misconduct involved making misrepresentations about her attendance at a judicial education seminar on her claim for reimbursement and subsequent communications with the court travel coordinator. The masters found that she was untruthful in her response to the commission’s investigation and in material portions of her testimony at the hearing. The commission concluded that the lack of integrity reflected in the judge’s misconduct, aggravated by her subsequent untruthful statements during the commission investigation and under oath before the special masters compelled the judge’s removal from office. (MacEachern, supra, No. 184 at p. 1 [49 Cal.4th CJP Supp. at p. 293].) Other judges have also been removed based, in significant part, on a lack of veracity and integrity. (Inquiry Concerning Hall (2006) No. 175, Decision and Order Removing Judge from Office [49 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 146] [misconduct included judge signing four campaign statements under oath falsely listing herself as the source of a $20,000 campaign contribution]; Inquiry Concerning Couwenberg (2001) No. 158, Decision and Order Removing Judge from Office [48 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 205] [extensive misrepresentations to Governor and commission concerning past educational, career and military history]; Inquiry Concerning Murphy (2001) No. 157, Decision and Order Removing Judge from Office [48 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 179] (Murphy) [judge lied about his ill health to remain on payroll while attending medical school in the Caribbean].) The nature and number of acts of misconduct is another important factor in our determination of the appropriate sanction. (Policy Declarations of Com. on Jud. Performance, policy 7.1(l)(a), (b).) The number of acts of misconduct is relevant to discipline to the extent it shows isolated incidents, or a pattern that demonstrates the judge lacks judicial temperament and the “ ‘ “ability to perform judicial functions in an even-handed manner.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Fletcher v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1998) 19 Cal.4th 865, 918 [81 Cal.Rptr.2d 58, 968 P.2d 958].) Judge Saucedo’s misconduct involved far more than a single inappropriate text message or gift to a subordinate employee; he engaged in an ongoing course of subterfuge and dishonesty over a two-month period. The deceptive and calculated nature of the judge’s conduct is incompatible with the temperament and integrity required of a judge. Judge Saucedo contends that his conduct is less serious than the conduct of Judge Cory Woodward and Judge Scott Steiner that resulted in censures by the commission in 2014. (Censure of Woodward (2014); Censure of Steiner (2014).) Both judges were disciplined for engaging in sexual activity in chambers, Judge Woodward with his clerk and Judge Steiner with two former students in his law school class. In addition, Judge Woodward was not forthright with court administration when questioned about the nature of his relationship with his clerk. Those cases were similar to the present case in that they involved serious misconduct that was damaging to the decorum and esteem of the judicial system. However, those cases differ from the present matter in significant ways—the relationships were consensual and did not involve unwelcome advances and pressure to engage in a personal relationship, the judges did not use subterfuge and dishonesty in pursuit of the relationships, and the judges did not lie under oath about their conduct. Moreover, in both Woodward and Steiner, the commission found in mitigation that the judges acknowledged their wrongdoing and expressed great remorse and contrition. (Woodward, supra, at p. 7; Steiner, supra, at p. 6.) Rather than show an appreciation of the serious nature of his misconduct, Judge Saucedo continues to deny the essential facts, blame Tovar for his conduct and minimize the gravity of his misconduct to a brief lapse in judgment. He apologizes for his wrongdoings, but his remorse is limited to appearing too familiar with Tovar in his effort to “mentor” her, and failing to report the anonymous letter and Tovar’s alleged “demand” for $8,000 to court administration. Even at his appearance before the commission, he continued to blame Tovar for his conduct, stating that Tovar “was asking for more and more, and [he] didn’t know how to get out of the situation . . . .” This statement reflects the judge’s continued denial of the fact that he was the one who offered Tovar gifts and favors for his own manipulative purposes and his failure to appreciate the gravity of his misconduct. “A judge’s failure to appreciate or admit to the impropriety of his or her acts indicates a lack of capacity to reform.” (Inquiry Concerning Platt (2002) No. 162, Decision and Order Removing Judge from Office, p. 15 [48 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 227, 248]; see Policy Declarations of Com. on Jud. Performance, policy 7.1(2)(a).) It may be unlikely that Judge Saucedo would again jeopardize his career by engaging in this precise type of conduct; however, we are concerned that the traits and lack of judgment that led to the misconduct in this case could lead to future improper actions demeaning to the esteem of the judiciary. This is a risk we cannot run and still fulfill our responsibility to protect the public and the reputation of the judiciary. Whether the misconduct undermines the integrity of the judiciary, respect for the judiciary or the administration of justice is another important factor in our consideration of the appropriate discipline. (Policy Declarations of Com. on Jud. Performance, policy 7.1(l)(h).) Judge Saucedo asserts that his conduct had no impact on the judicial system because no case or litigant was affected. This ignores the impact of his conduct on the public’s perception of the judiciary. As the commission has previously noted, “The public will not, and should not, respect a judicial officer who has been shown to have repeatedly lied for his own benefit.” (Murphy, supra, No. 157 at p. 18 [48 Cal.4th CJP Supp. at p. 202].) Judge Saucedo’s plea for censure, rather than removal, focuses on his lack of prior discipline and the strong support he has earned as a judge and community leader. We recognize and appreciate the many contributions Judge Saucedo has made to his community and the legal profession, and to promoting diversity on the bench and in the legal profession. Nonetheless, his lack of prior discipline and distinguished career cannot undo his egregious misconduct in this case. While mitigating evidence may be taken into account in determining the totality of the circumstances as pertinent to determining the appropriate discipline, “[t]here can be no mitigation for maliciously motivated unjudicial conduct.” (Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 13 Cal.3d 778, 800 [119 Cal.Rptr. 841, 532 P.2d 1209]; see Cannon, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 707; Broadman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1112; Freedman, supra, No. 179 at p. 7 [49 Cal.4th CJP Supp. at p. 232].) Certain misconduct is so completely at odds with the core qualities and role of a judge that no amount of mitigation can redeem the seriousness of the wrongdoing or obviate the need for removal in order to fulfill our mandate to protect the public, enforce high standards of judicial conduct, and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. This is such a case. As such, we issue the following order removing Judge Saucedo from office. CJP Supp. 5 CJP Supp. 6 CJP Supp. 7 CJP Supp. 8 CJP Supp. 9 CJP Supp. 10 CJP Supp. 11 CJP Supp. 12 CJP Supp. 13 CJP Supp. 14 CJP Supp. 15 CJP Supp. 16 CJP Supp. 17 CJP Supp. 18 CJP Supp. 19 CJP Supp. 20 CJP Supp. 21 CJP Supp. 22 CJP Supp. 23 CJP Supp. 24 CJP Supp. 25 CJP Supp. 26 CJP Supp. 27 CJP Supp. 28 CJP Supp. 29 CJP Supp. 30 CJP Supp. 31 CJP Supp. 32 CJP Supp. 33 CJP Supp. 34 CJP Supp. 35 CJP Supp. 36 CJP Supp. 37 CJP Supp. 38 CJP Supp. 39 CJP Supp. 40 CJP Supp. 41 CJP Supp. 42 CJP Supp. 43 CJP Supp. 44 CJP Supp. 45 CJP Supp. 46 CJP Supp. 47 CJP Supp. 48 CJP Supp. 49 CJP Supp. 50 CJP Supp. 51 CJP Supp. 52 CJP Supp. 53 CJP Supp. 54