Opinion ID: 1172050
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Handcock Matter.

Text: (12) In the midst of a criminal jury trial involving a hit-and-run accident, Judge Ryan conducted his own investigation of the matter. Without notice to the parties, the judge directed his bailiff to contact a local auto dealer's parts manager. The judge wanted to obtain a rear light lens for the type of vehicle driven by defendant, so that he could compare the lens with trial evidence. The judge then went on a lunch break, sought out the parts manager with the lens, and determined that the lens matched defendant's car. Back in court, the judge interrupted the defense case and called the parts manager as the court's own witness. The judge did this with minimal notice to the parties and over objection from both sides. The evidence presented by the judge was extremely damaging to defendant's case. Defendant's resulting conviction was later set aside by the appellate department of the superior court because of Judge Ryan's misconduct. ( People v. Handcock (1983) 145 Cal. App.3d Supp. 25 [193 Cal. Rptr. 397].) The court found no authority for the judge's investigation. ( Id. at p. Supp. 32.) Moreover, the appellate department also held that although a judge may call and examine witnesses (Evid. Code, § 775), the manner in which Judge Ryan placed his own witness on the stand (by interrupting the defendant's testimony) seriously prejudiced the defendant. ( Handcock, supra, 145 Cal. App.3d at p. Supp. 31.) The masters and the Commission both determined that the judge's conduct was prejudicial. Wenger v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 29 Cal.3d 615, involved similar misconduct. In that case Judge Wenger conducted his own investigation, suspecting that one of the parties had made false statements in the briefing. The Commission found that Judge Wenger `should have known that it was beyond his lawful authority to conduct an ex parte investigation....' ( Id. at p. 632.) The Commission determined that Judge Wenger's conduct was prejudicial. We agreed, concluding: By undertaking a collateral investigation [the judge] abdicated his responsibility for deciding the parties' dispute on pleadings and evidence properly brought before him. ( Ibid. ) We conclude that Judge Ryan's handling of the Handcock case was improper and constituted prejudicial conduct.