Opinion ID: 1560454
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ticket-fixing

Text: ¶ 29. Not to be satisfied with willful misconduct in his courtroom, Judge Bradford sought to influence the administration of justice before other judges. A separate complaint recounts that Judge Bradford intervened in a case not before him by calling the county prosecutor and requesting that traffic citations be dismissed in a case assigned to another judge. A strong argument exists that this misconduct exceeds the more common complaint of fixing tickets, for he chose secretly to influence a case assigned to another judge. Seeking special treatment for a privileged few is a subversion of justice. Such misconduct, standing alone, would, once again, mandate today's punishment. ¶ 30. The majority notes the Commission's finding that Judge Bradford's other dispositive actions were akin to `ticket fixing.' Most ticket-fixing cases involve incidence(s) of ex parte communication(s) that result in speeding ticket(s) and/or other minor infraction(s) being remanded to the file. [1] In stark contrast, Judge Bradford improperly dismissed multiple proceedings involving infractions that hardly qualify as minor, to wit: (1) violations of protective orders, (2) second-offense DUI, (3) first-offense DUI by a minor. If these infractions are akin to run-of-the-mill, ticket-fixing cases, they are distant relatives from the illegitimate side of the family. Once again, any one of these three separate acts, standing alone, would merit the sanctions prescribed today.