Court Opinion

ID: 9605382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:35:15.310395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:27.702160
License: Public Domain

McCOMB and WILSON, JJ.
We concur in the opinion prepared by Mr. Presiding Justice Moore. In addition it is our view that the nonjudicial conduct of Judge Burnell during the trial of numerous cases, many of which are cited in Etzel v. Rosenbloom, 83 Cal.App.2d 758 [189 P.2d 848], *169is verging on a public scandal and is bringing the courts and the administration of- justice into disrepute. (See also People v. Reese (1934), 136 Cal.App. 657 at 665 et seq. [29 P.2d 450].)*
No longer should such disgraceful acts be lightly brushed aside. In order that taxpayers, litigants, witnesses and lawyers *170may be protected from further insults, harassment and ridicule at his caprice and whim two courses at least are readily available: (1) The judicial commission, acting on recommendation of the governor, can retire him for the “reason of mental . . . disability that is or is likely to be of a permanent character” rendering him unfit to perform the duties of the *171office which he occupies. (The Judges’ Retirement Act [Stats. 1937, p. 2204; 2 Peering’s Gen. Laws, 1944, Act 5849a, §§ 2, 3, p. 2252 et. seq.].) (2) The Legislature may remove him by a ‘ concurrent resolution of both Houses of the Legislature adopted by a two-thirds vote of each House.” (Const., State of California, art. VI, § 10.)
A petition for a rehearing was denied August 23, 1948, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 30, 1948. Edmonds, J., and Carter, J., voted for a hearing.

Division One of the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal in discussing the misconduct of Judge Burnell, in People v. Beese, supra, says:
“Although not embracing a complete list of the separate occasions on each of which it is asserted by appellants that the trial court was guilty of misconduct in the trial of the action, an inspection of the specifications of error in that regard reveals the fact that the attention of this court is directed to not less than sixty-eight separate violations of proper decorum on the part of the trial judge. A few of such specifications will suffice:
“On the first day of the trial of the action, in giving the required statutory admonition to the jury, and in especially cautioning them to have nothing to do with the attorneys on either side of the case, the judge made the following remarks:
“ ‘So just be a little bit careful, please. I don’t want you to think that these gentlemen all have leprosy, or smallpox, that you have to get from them, but just kindly figure that they have all got the measles, or something you don’t want to be exposed to. It is just a little tip, ladies and gentlemen, because I don’t want anything talked around such as I have indicated. . .’.
“Referring to objections by counsel for defendant to the reading of testimony given by a witness on a former trial of the action, and to the fact that the witness might return to the state before the trial could be completed, the trial judge said:
“ ‘If he is (has returned to the state), anyone that wishes can put him on the stand, but the idea is to get the facts before this jury, and not to play a game to see how many points either side can win. ’
“Without any apparent underlying reason for the statement, at one time the judge said:
“ ‘We can put on enough side-shows in this court of our own, without going into Judge White’s court and copying his part of it.’
“Apparently with the same thought in mind, following a recess of the court and a stipulation that the jury was present, the judge remarked:
“ ‘All right, proceed. Both sides of the show are here. We might just as well go ahead.’
“It appears that one of the attorneys representing one of the defendants was looking into a ‘bag’- which was the property of one of the other attorneys in the ease, and the judge said:
“ ‘Judge Perky’s bag; we want to make sure which judge you are talking about. I only hope it doesn’t leak on you, Mr. Lawson.’
“When a complaining witness had testified that he had paid the sum of $20,000 to one of the defendants in connection with the sale of shares of stock, the attorney for the People asked him:
“ ‘Q. Did you get anything for that $20,000? A. Not a thing.’ The judge then interposed the following question: ‘You got experience,
didn’t you? A. Plenty of that.’
“On another occasion, the court made the following remark to a witness on the stand:
“ ‘Mr. Robinson, you are just a little too eager to answer questions *170without giving either side a chance to object. If you see either of these gentlemen going through gesticulations or motions that indicate that they are about to give birth to an objection, just stop a moment. ’
"At a time when one of counsel for defendants was examining one of the witnesses on cross-examination, the judge interrupted and began to examine the witness himself. After several questions had been asked by the court, one of the attorneys for one of the defendants interposed the following remark:
" ‘If your Honor please, I prefer to examine my own witness.
" ‘The Court: I dare say, but when it appears that the witness is becoming confused in matters, I am going to take a hand in order to get the thing straightened out and the facts before the jury. We are not playing a game to get the witness balled up on the witness stand. ’
In criticising one of the attorneys for his manner in asking questions, the judge said:
" ‘I think we might make better time if Mr. Blalock would supply Judge Perky with one of these old-fashioned streetcar bells, to let him ring it when he wants to go ahead. ’
"During the reading of certain testimony, Mr. Perky and Mr. Kelby took turns in reading from the transcript, and upon one occasion, as Mr. Kelby was about to take up the reading, the judge made the following comment: ‘All right; we will listen to the reading of the Word from the Beverend Kelby now. ’
"With reference to the proposed reading of each of several checks which had been introduced as exhibits on the trial of the action, the judge made this remark: ‘There is no heart or sex appeal in reading checks. ’
"On another occasion the judge addressed the following remark to one of the attorneys for one of the defendants: ‘I am not particular for too much decorum in the court room, but I have never yet allowed any attorney to stand on his head; he will have to stand on his feet.’
‘ ‘ Following the cross-examination of one of the witnesses introduced by the defendants, the judge had this to say: ‘Are you gentlemen all through with Mr. Mort, with what is left of him? . . . All right, Mr. Mort, I guess if they are all through with you, you have been here a couple of days, and what is left of you can be excused. ’
"One of the attorneys for one of the defendants having stated to the court that he would prepare proposed instructions for one of the defendants as soon as he could obtain a copy of the instructions offered by the People, the judge made the following remark:
" ‘Yes, do so, as soon as you can. The idea of most instructions seems to be to confuse the jury, or to try to confuse them as far as possible.’
"It appears that counsel for the People had a book which belonged to Judge Perky, who was one of the attorneys for one of the defendants, and that Judge Perky had made an inquiry for it; whereupon the judge remarked:
" ‘Well, I don’t think anyone would want to take a date book away from you, Judge Perky, particularly if it contained any live telephone numbers. ’
"At a time when the court had commented upon the testimony given by one of the witnesses for the prosecution to the effect that he did *171not think that the attorneys for the defendant ‘ should put a sort of shotgun statement to her answer’, without any objection thereto having been interposed by either of the attorneys for either of the defendants, the judge said:
“ ‘If you want an exception, however, I will give you an exception. In fact, I will give you another exception for good measure on account of the depression.’ To which remark one of the attorneys said: ‘Well, I wish to take an exception to the statement of the court. ’ The Court : ‘Well, I will give you another one on that; only one on that, however. I cannot give you too many bargains. ’
‘ ‘ In cross-examination of a witness on attempted impeachment by one of the attorneys for defendant, he asked a question which had a tendency to distinguish between two persons who bore the same name. In connection therewith, the judge made the following remark: ‘Well, it is assuming facts not in evidence. In the first place, it is assuming that she is particular. We don’t know whether she is or not. . . .’
“During'the examination of a witness, reference was made to the kind of work which he was doing, and the court said: ‘What was he doing, flagpole sitting?’
Referring to another witness, the court said: ‘Well, he has made his explanation of why he made a certain remark, indicating a tendency, perhaps, to commit the crime of mayhem. ’
“Referring to the fact that one judge may not agree with another with reference to some question of law, the judge of the trial court made the following disparaging remark: ‘He (Judge White) might have made a different ruling on some question than I might have made. We do not always agree, and that is why we have Supreme Courts, and rubber mats on the cuspidors. . . . ’
“As indicating what the judge o.f the trial court thought of the mine in question, the following remark of the trial judge may be cited: ‘In other words, you don’t contend that that hole in the ground had ore in it, or didn’t have ore in it.’
“Commenting upon certain proposed exhibits in the case, the judge remarked: ‘Are you about to introduce the three wise monkeys as an exhibit here? ’ Whereupon counsel for the prosecution said: ‘There is only one prosecution counsel.’ The Court: ‘Gentlemen, it is practically twelve o ’clock, and I think that is a happy thought to adjourn with.’
“Extended comment would seem to be unnecessary. In cases too numerous to properly admit of citation thereof, because of judicial misconduct that was insignificant compared to that which so unmistakably appears in the instant ease, the respective judgments therein were reversed. ’ ’