Opinion ID: 1444402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Count One F; Ex Parte Contacts With Witnesses

Text: On July 27, 1993, Eddie Riegle appeared without counsel before petitioner for arraignment on a misdemeanor charge of assault with a deadly weapon (a BB rifle). The district attorney requested a brief continuance for plea negotiations, indicating his belief that the shooting was accidental. He wanted to discuss the incident with the victim. He also wanted to investigate how various sentence requirements would affect Riegle's Army service, which was to begin the next month. On August 3, Riegle again appeared before petitioner without counsel. Under a plea bargain, the district attorney proposed that Riegle plead guilty to simple battery and receive a sentence of eight days of community service and a fine. The district attorney explained that he had discussed the sentence with the victim, who had no objection. Petitioner then suggested that Riegle serve eight days in jail in lieu of the community service. Gary Whitley, a friend of Riegle's who was an inactive attorney and who was appearing as a character witness, responded that the Army would not accept Riegle under that sentence. Petitioner replied that the charge was too serious for a sentence of only eight days of community service. Petitioner then granted Riegle's request for time to consider the matter, and Riegle left the courtroom. When Riegle returned and his case was called again, Kimberly Fletcher, the public defender, accompanied him and attempted to negotiate with petitioner for the sentence the district attorney had proposed. During this period, and while on the bench, petitioner telephoned both the victim and the park ranger who arrested Riegle. Because both were unavailable, petitioner left messages for them. While court was still in session, the ranger returned petitioner's call. Petitioner took the call at the bench, but did not put it on the speaker phone, so Riegle and counsel could hear only petitioner's side of the conversation. According to petitioner, he intended to put the call on the speaker phone, but decided not to because the ranger became irate upon learning of the proposed plea bargain. Petitioner repeated in open court parts of his conversation with the ranger as it occurred and related more of it after the call ended. The evidence consistently showed that, during the call, petitioner referred to Riegle as a punk and made comments like, That's what I thought. Bad attitude. After the call, petitioner again stated: Just what I thought. This ranger has affirmed that he had a bad attitude. He's a punk kid. Petitioner also expressed the opinion that Riegle should be tried and that he would be convicted. Petitioner also stated that he would not accept the negotiated plea bargain. On this record, we agree with the Commission's unanimous conclusion that petitioner committed prejudicial misconduct by making ex parte contacts with the ranger during the Riegle matter. [14] (See former Cal.Code Jud. Conduct, canon 3B(7), as adopted eff. Oct. 5, 1992, now Cal.Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3B(7); Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(6).) Petitioner's asserted concern about embarrassing the ranger does not excuse his decision to exclude counsel and the defendant from a conversation in which he obtained information that influenced his handling of the case. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the evidence in the record does not show the parties stipulated that petitioner could make these calls or exclude them from his conversation with the ranger. According to Whitley, petitioner made the calls [w]ithout telling anyone what he was going to do. Kimberly Fletcher similarly testified that no one suggested petitioner make these calls; he acted spontaneously, and on [his] own. Consistent with this evidence, the hearing transcript does not reflect that petitioner either requested or received stipulations to his ex parte contact with the ranger. [15]