Green Valley Elementary School
Quick Facts
Boy Scouts of America
Tuesday,
November 6, 2012
Page 1
Commission Charges Bay Area Judge With Interfering in Son’s Case
By KENNETH
OFGANG, Staff Writer
The Commission
on Judicial Performance has charged a Contra Costa Superior Court judge with
interfering in a case involving the judge’s son.
In a notice of
formal proceedings, made public yesterday, the commission said Judge Bruce C.
Mills has been accused of willful misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice, and improper action, charges that could result in
his removal from the bench.
The allegations
stem from the issuance of a citation for possession of tobacco to Mills’ minor
son in October 2010. The commission explained in the notice that the case was
assigned to Commissioner Joel Golub, and Mills’ son appeared before Golub in
March of last year, pled guilty to an infraction, and ordered him to do 20
hours of volunteer work.
Both Golub and
Mills sit in Walnut Creek. (Traffic Court Fines) The judge’s son was enrolled in a residential
treatment program and did not complete the volunteer work, the commission said,
and was ordered to appear before Golub in October of last year.
Conversation
With Clerk
The commission
accused Mills of initiating a conversation with Golub’s clerk, in which the
judge allegedly asked the clerk to call his son’s case early so that the son’s
attorney would not have to wait.
“You told the
clerk you wanted your son to get credit for the time spent in the program, and
showed her documents reflecting payments made to the program provider,” the
commission said in the notice. “The clerk told you or confirmed to you that
Commissioner Golub was absent and that the calendar was being handled by a
judge pro tern.”
The judge, the
CJP alleged, subsequently told the clerk that the attorney was unable to
appear, and that he would be appearing instead.
The commission
further alleged:
“The clerk
either knew that you had a 1:30 p.m. calendar or asked if you did, and raised
the idea that you could possibly speak to the judge pro tem before the
afternoon calendar...was called. You indicated that you would like to do so.
“You then spoke
to the judge pro tem in her chambers about your son’s case, off the record,
before she called the afternoon calendar. You told the judge pro tem that your
son was in a program out of state and that you wanted him to receive credit
toward the volunteer work requirement for being in the residential program.
After questioning you about the program, the judge pro tem agreed to grant your
request. No proceedings were conducted in open court on your son’s case.”
Canons of Ethics
By that conduct,
the commission alleged, Mills violated canons of ethics requiring that judges
uphold the integrity of the judiciary; avoid impropriety and promote public
confidence; refrain from using the prestige of the judiciary to advance private
interests; and avoid ex parte communications, other than in specified
situations.
The judge’s
formal response to the charges is due Nov. 20, the commission said. Mills’
attorney, James A. Murphy of San Francisco, could not be reached for comment.
Mills, a 1984
graduate of Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon, practiced at a Walnut Creek
firm until 1986, and was a deputy district attorney for Contra Costa County
from 1987 until 1995, when he was appointed to the Walnut Creek-Danville
Municipal Court by then-Gov. Pete Wilson. He became a Contra Costa Superior
Court judge through unification in 1998.
He was publicly
admonished by the commission in 2006 for having improper ex parte discussions
with a defendant, a lawyer, and a probation officer and for making
inappropriate remarks from the bench.
The commission
found that Mills had, among other things, made “sarcastic and discourteous”
remarks regarding a defendant whom the judge believed was faking an inability
to speak English.
“Judge Mills has
engaged in a pattern of making comments that are discourteous, sarcastic,
demeaning and belittling to those appearing before him,” the commission said at
the time. “Such remarks toward a litigant or counsel are not consistent with
the conduct required by canon 3B(4),” requiring that judges conduct their
official duties in a patient and dignified manner.
The commission
also found that in 1997, Mills had improperly granted diversion after chambers
discussions involving the defense lawyer, the defendant, and the probation
officer—who had originally suggested that the defendant was ineligible—after
the defendant’s no contest plea had been accepted and the prosecutors had left
the courthouse.
Copyright
2012, Metropolitan News Company
View details »
Related
COL1
COL
COL
COL1
