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

Heading: Count Fourteen: Improper Use of Court Staff for Campaign Purposes

Text: During the first half of 1994, petitioner was running for reelection; the primary was scheduled for June 7, 1994. At the end of a court session in late April 1994, petitioner had a group photograph taken of court staff and others who appeared before him. Petitioner's clerk and the public defender initially declined petitioner's request that they pose for the picture. The public defender was busy with clients when petitioner came to her office and made the request. However, after petitioner insisted that they participate, both reluctantly agreed. Petitioner's clerk felt that petitioner had ordered her to participate and that she had no choice. Based on petitioner's representations, almost all of those photographed believed the picture was simply a personal memento; none understood that petitioner would use it in his reelection campaign. [3] Indeed, both the public defender and the clerk had informed petitioner they did not want to be involved in the campaign. Despite this knowledge and contrary to his representations, in May 1994, petitioner asked a local newspaper to print the photograph. The newspaper responded that, because of the imminent election, it would not do so without charge, and that it would publish the photograph only as a paid advertisement. Petitioner agreed to pay to have the picture published. On May 26, one week before the election, the picture appeared in the paper with the caption, PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT. [4] On this record, the special masters concluded that part of [petitioner's] motivation in placing the advertisement was to assist his re-election campaign, and that by failing to get consent from those photographed, his conduct surrounding the taking and use of the photograph ... constitute[d] prejudicial misconduct. The Commission unanimously agreed. In this court, petitioner concedes the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conclusion that he committed prejudicial misconduct in using the photograph for political purposes without getting consent from all participants. However, he contests the conclusion that his conduct surrounding the taking of the photograph constituted prejudicial misconduct. In light of the circumstances here, we reject petitioner's contention. Petitioner himself testified that at least part of his purpose in having the picture taken was to assist his campaign. By insisting (over objections) that everyone participate, securing cooperation by stating that the picture was simply a personal memento, and failing to disclose his intent to use the picture in his campaign, petitioner committed prejudicial misconduct both in taking and using the picture for campaign purposes. (See Gonzalez, supra, 33 Cal.3d 359 at p. 374, 188 Cal.Rptr. 880, 657 P.2d 372 [exploitation of judicial office for political ends seriously and impermissibly undermines public esteem for the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary].)