The judges of Los Angeles County have been keeping the Commission on Judicial Performance or CJP—California’s judicial watchdog and disciplinary agency busy.
In March the CJP publicly admonished Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Harvey Gliss for remarking in open court in the presence of the relatives of a black defendant:
“I guess the only thing that will make the defendants plead was for the judge to come out in a white sheet and a pointy white hat”. Instead, the defendants requested the judge’s disqualification. Read the discipline here.
Then in August the CJP publicly admonished the Hon. Joan Comparet-Cassani, Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Her offense? Improperly revoking a criminal defendant’s pro per status because her honor refused to believe that the defendant was capable of personally drafting the two procedural motions he had just filed without assistance from someone.
If you think that a self-represented criminal defendant has every right to receive help when drafting motions to be filed in court you would be right. But not only was her honor ignorant of the defendant’s right to self-representation—including the very limited circumstances under which his pro se status could be revoked—Judge Congeniality was extraordinarily rude go the man in court:
THE COURT: Okay. Who did you get this form from?
THE DEFENDANT: I did it myself, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t believe that.
THE DEFENDANT: Well, I had somebody -- I wrote it and I
had somebody type it for me.
THE COURT: But it -- parts are added in, so it’s a proforma
form.
THE DEFENDANT: Excuse me?
THE COURT: I said, parts are added, so it looks proforma to
me. You got this from somebody.
THE DEFENDANT: I wrote it in handwriting, and I had
somebody type it up for me.
THE COURT: No, I don’t believe you.
THE DEFENDANT: I did, Your Honor. That’s the truth.
THE COURT: But you copied it from something.
THE BAILIFF: Ma’am, if you continue to react, you’ll be in
the hallway.
THE DEFENDANT: I have a piece of discovery right here that –
THE COURT: Excuse me. I’m reading this. You gave it to
me.
(A Pause in the Proceedings.)
THE COURT: You did not draft this. There’s no way.
THE DEFENDANT: I did, Your Honor. That’s the honest
truth.
THE COURT: No, there’s no way.
THE DEFENDANT: I did, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t believe you; it’s that simple. I don’t
believe you. You did not draft this […]
But the truly extraordinary thing about this story is how in the world was Judge Comparet-Cassani on the bench to even commit this conduct?
In the current disciplinary report the CJP reveals that Judge Congeniality has a prior record of discipline For ordering an in-custody defendant’s 50,000 volt “shock-belt” activated for 8 seconds, not because he posed a security threat, but because Judge Comparet-Cassani did not like the man’s attitude!!!! So why is this Natzi-like judge from hell still on the bench?
In reaching its decision, the commission viewed as aggravating factors two prior
matters in which Judge Comparet-Cassani was disciplined for misconduct similar to that at issue here, namely, abuse of authority with regard to a pro per criminal defendant and poor demeanor. In 2000, the judge was privately admonished, in part, for ordering a sheriff’s deputy to activate an electronic stun belt being worn by a pro per criminal defendant that was designed to deliver a 50,000 volt electric shock for approximately eight seconds. The judge ordered the belt activated during a hearing not to prevent courtroom violence, but because of the defendant’s verbal interruptions. The admonishment also included two prior incidents, one involving the defendant who was shocked and one involving another defendant, in which the judge threatened the use of the belt as a means of controlling non-violent courtroom behavior.
So why is this judge still on the bench? You tell us, because we haven’t a clue.
