Opinion ID: 1150202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: cn a judge against whom complaint is made be compelled to appear and testify in obedience to subpoena issued by the council?

Text: We again turn to 20 O.S.Supp. 1974, § 1658, and read: The Council shall promptly investigate all complaints received by it, and shall determine the proper disposition thereof, as provided in this act. To that end, it shall have power to hold hearings, administer oaths or affirmations, receive testimony and other evidence, issue and serve or cause to be served subpoenas requiring testimony or the production of books, records, papers or other tangible evidence ... We immediately note there is nothing in the cited statute specifically authorizing compulsory attendance pursuant to subpoena of a judge who is under investigation. On the other hand, we find nothing in the statutes which specifically exempts such a judge. We have held that the proceedings before the Council are not criminal in nature so as to extend to the judge under investigation the complete privileges and immunities guaranteed a defendant in a criminal case. In light of our holding, can it be successfully argued that under § 1658, the subject of a complaint before the Council may refuse to attend and may refuse to answer any questions. We think not. This issue was passed on by the California Courts in McComb v. Superior Court, etc., App., 68 Cal. App.3d 89, 137 Cal. Rptr. 233 (1977) . There, an 82 year old judge refused to appear for the taking of a deposition pursuant to order and subpoena of the Commission on Judicial Performance. The Commission petitioned the Superior Court for an order requiring the elderly judge to appear and testify. After being ordered to appear and testify by the Superior Court, the judge, in response to a show cause order, asserted his constitutional privilege not to be called as a witness and not to testify. Upon further refusal to appear and testify, the judge was adjudicated to be in contempt of court by the Superior Court. We find the California Code, Gov.Code, section 68750, analogous to the provisions of our § 1658, in that California has empowered their Commission to administer oaths, to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses, and to make orders for or concerning the inspection of books and records. The McComb court held: Accordingly, we hold that a judge who is the subject of proceedings `which are neither criminal nor before a court of justice ...' does not have the privilege afforded to a defendant in a criminal case to refuse to respond as a witness and to testify . ..; he may be called upon to testify and can refuse only to disclose a matter that may tend to incriminate him. Judge Anonymous also takes the position that because the Council is not empowered to grant immunity, it is without authority to subpoena him as a witness. The granting of immunity presupposes a refusal to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination. This Court held in Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety v. Robinson, Okl., 512 P.2d 128 (1973) : The privilege of a witness not to incriminate himself is not infringed by merely being called as a witness and compelled to take the oath. The privilege cannot be invoked to excuse the witness from appearing and taking the stand. The privilege of a witness not to incriminate himself is an option of refusal and is not a prohibition of inquiry (citing cases). In no event may the witness refuse to be sworn, United States v. Romero, 249 F.2d 371, 375 (C.A.2d Cir.1957) .  The Supreme Court of the United States considered a similar proposition in Communist Party v. Sub. Act. Cont. Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 81 S.Ct. 1357, 6 L.Ed.2d 625 (1961) . It was therein held by the Court that: [I]t is always true that one who is required to assert the privilege against self-incrimination may thereby arouse the suspicions of prosecuting authorities. Nevertheless, it is not and has never been the law that the privilege disallows the asking of potentially incriminating questions or authorizes the person of whom they are asked to evade them without expressly asserting that his answers may tend to incriminate him. (citing authorities) In the matter before us for review, there was no claim of privilege predicated upon self-incrimination. There was no request that immunity be granted. We find therefore that the argument of Judge Anonymous is without merit.