Opinion ID: 1172050
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Communication With the Press.

Text: The Commission determined that Judge Ryan made improper comments to the press in four pending cases before him. The Commission stated in its ruling that [w]hen cases are pending it is entirely improper for a judge to use the media either as a platform or as a method of responding to criticism. In some instances, his comments have drawn unfavorable reaction from the press and in others, prejudiced litigants. (18) In the Nutrition Site matter, Judge Ryan informed the parties that he would mail them his written decision. A short time later a newspaper reporter learned that the judge had finished his opinion in the case. The reporter came to Judge Ryan's chambers and asked if she could see the decision. Although the judge admitted to the masters that the decision was still only in draft form, he nevertheless showed it to the newspaper reporter and discussed his rationale for deciding the case. Judge Ryan's statements appeared in the local newspaper before the parties received copies of the decision. The masters and the Commission both concluded that this was prejudicial conduct. We agree. Canon 3A(6) of the California Code of Judicial Conduct provides: Judges should abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court.... By showing his decision to the press before it was in final form and by discussing his decision with the press before he had informed the parties of his ruling, Judge Ryan acted improperly. (19) We have previously discussed the Starks matter, which involved the contempt order for Attorney Starks. In a separate count, Judge Ryan is charged with discussing his contempt order with the press while the matter was pending. Specifically, Judge Ryan informed a newspaper reporter that he planned to vacate his order of contempt, but would ask another judge to review the matter. Starks learned of Judge Ryan's intention to vacate the contempt order by reading the local newspaper. Starks did not receive formal notice of Judge Ryan's order vacating contempt for another two weeks. After stating to the press that he intended to drop the contempt charge, Judge Ryan nevertheless went on to defend his contempt order in the press. He is reported as saying: I was told [Starks] was really out of line, but since there was something negative said about me and since it involved my clerk, I don't want to appear biased and will let another judge decide. Judge Ryan added that Starks had said some really rude and nasty things in court, and [a] judge has to protect the integrity of the court, and it's not proper for loud, derogatory statements to [be] made in fron[t] of the whole courtroom as soon as the judge leaves. Judge Ryan made his statements to the press while the validity of his contempt order was pending in the superior court on petition for writ of habeas corpus. As canon 3A(6) of the California Code of Judicial Conduct expressly states, the judge acted improperly in commenting on pending matters. We agree with the masters and the Commission that Judge Ryan's conduct was prejudicial. (20) In the McGinnis matter, the judge is charged with defending his rather unique disposition in a dog custody case to the press. [10] The masters and the Commission determined Judge Ryan's comments to be prejudicial. However, the record indicates that all of the statements made by the judge and reported in the press were statements that he made from the bench while the press was present in the courtroom. Judge Ryan merely declared that the parties had reached a settlement and announced what amounted to an interlocutory judgment granting temporary joint custody of the dog to both parties. Although the examiners allege that Judge Ryan was grandstanding for the press during the court session, we do not find clear and convincing evidence of any impropriety in this matter. (21) Finally, in the previously discussed Wiggins matter, which involved the judge's imposition of a 30-day jail sentence because Wiggins requested a jury trial, the judge is separately charged with defending his sentence by discussing the pending matter with the press and writing a letter to the editor explaining his sentence. There is clear and convincing evidence to support the findings of the masters and the Commission, and we agree with the Commission that the judge committed prejudicial conduct.