Letter to John and Ken Show
KFI 640 AM
11 January, 2002
John and Ken
The John and Ken Show
KFI 640 AM
Dear John and Ken,
Here are answers to two questions that you asked on your Friday show,
regarding the lack of comment by California judges and attorneys on the
behavior and qualifications of Orange county Superior Court Judge Ronald
Kline in light of his admissions and other evidence of child molestation.
First,
"Why don't other judges speak out?"
and second,
"Doesn't anyone ever run against these guys?"
In answer to your first question, judges (and attorneys)
don't speak out on judicial behavior because it is a statutory crime for
a judge or candidate to criticize a judge or another candidate for judge.
The California Code of Judicial Ethics applies to judges and to candidates
for judge. (See my enclosed reference #1.) The California Code of Judicial
Ethics is statutorily enforceable, not simply voluntary. The code of ethics
that attorneys are intended to abide by has similar provisions, but is
dependent upon voluntary compliance.
The answer to your second question is more subject to extrapolation
and conjecture:
· In California, only attorneys can be candidates for
judgeship.
· Many, if not most judges reach their office initially by appointment,
not by election. (A fact in Ventura county)
· Many, if not most judicial appointments are made from the rolls
of the county Deputy District Attorneys. (A fact in Ventura county.)
· Candidates for judge must be residents of their county, or
if candidate for higher courts, of their district.
· Local attorneys generally practice in front of local judges
and oppose local prosecutors.
· It is extremely rare to find a practicing local attorney who
will run against a local sitting judge. Almost universally, only open judgeships
may attract contention in an election.
· A sitting judge, even if appointed but never elected, when
his term is complete, may request the Clerk to omit his name from the ballot
that the voters see, provided that he has no registered opponent. This
request has never been denied, to my knowledge. The judge is then officially
elected by unanimous ballot, a ballot that the voters never saw.
· Any candidate for the seat of a sitting judge is a threat to
the incumbent's professional career and career aspirations. It is, arguably,
a clear invitation for discrete and often not so discrete retaliation from
the bench or District Attorney's office against a challenger and the challenger's
clients.
It seems to me that our courts are filled with local attorneys who
must practice their professions without offending the offices and careers
of their judges or their District Attorneys. To challenge a judge or district
attorney for their office, a local attorney places at serious risk, his
local professional career and the fate of his clients. (This caution has
been a pragmatic consideration in Ventura county since Michael Bradbury
became District Attorney.)
You guys can make a better humorous issue of this than I could. I hope
you or your staff have a professional who will review my letter and its
references and allegations and advise you whether to take this stuff seriously
or not.
Your guest candidate, if the future is to be consistent with the past,
may find herself in trouble for violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics
for her campaign statements made so far.
Also, on that same line, I think you will find judicial comment on this
affair virtually non-existent and critical remarks from the California
judiciary, totally non-existent. Same estimate applies for California attorneys,
for the same reasons. Any of the legal, judicial and prosecutorial brethren
who speak out do so at risk of assassination of their careers or in violation
of their respective codes of ethics.
As one of Ventura's prominent criminal defense attorneys once said to
me, "Henry, you're right. But, if my name is ever associated with your
politics, all my clients will go to jail." He was not kidding around.
If you use this, please do have fun with it.
Best regards,
(signed, Henry)
Henry Nicolle
Associate JAILer-In-Chief
California JAIL4Judges
Our Judiciary Must be Directly Accountable to the Citizens
http://www.jail4judges-ventura.org/
[email protected]
POB 5633
Ventura, California (93005)
Page: 805-939-7676
Enclosure: Reference #1.
Why don't other judges speak out? (See California Code of Judicial Ethics)
Answer: The California Code of Judicial Ethics specifically prohibits
a judge or candidate for judge from speaking about judges, except for simply
endorsement.
Ref: Code of Judicial Ethics Canons 5 and 6 generally.
Ref: Code of Judicial; Ethics Canon 5
Canon 5. They (judges) shall, however, avoid political activity that
may create the appearance of political bias or impropriety.
(Note: Advisory Committee Comment "Under this Canon, a judge may publicly
endorse another judicial candidate. Such endorsements are permitted because
judicial officers have a special obligation to uphold the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary and are in a unique position to know the
qualifications necessary to serve as a competent judicial officer.")
Ref: Code of Judicial Ethics 5.C.
Canon 5. C.: Speaking at Political Gatherings
Candidates for judicial office may speak to political gatherings
only on their own behalf or on behalf of another candidate for judicial
office.
Note: This Canon, by specifying how a candidate may speak,
has been routinely
construed to mean that all other
comments (except
endorsement) pertaining to judges
or judicial
candidates are prohibited.
Ref: Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 6.E.
Canon 6.E.: A candidate for judicial office shall comply
with the provisions of Canon 5.
Note: This Canon makes Canon 5 applicable to an non-judge
candidate, (such
as your guest).
Source: California
Code of Judicial Ethics
DIVISION II. California Code of Judicial Ethics
Amended by the Supreme Court of California effective December 13, 2000;
previously amended effective March 4, 2023
Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the
judiciary.
Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all of the judge’s activities.
Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially
and diligently.
Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extra-judicial
activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
Canon 5. A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate
political activity.
Canon 6. Compliance with the code of judicial ethics.
CANON 5
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL
ACTIVITY
B. Conduct During Judicial Campaigns
A candidate for election or appointment to judicial office
shall not
(1) make statements to the electorate or the appointing authority that
commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies,
or issues that could come before the courts, or
(2) knowingly misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position,
or any other fact concerning the candidate or his or her opponent.
C. Speaking at Political Gatherings
Candidates for judicial office may speak to political gatherings
only on their own behalf or on behalf of another candidate for judicial
office.
D. Measures to Improve the Law
Except as otherwise permitted in this Code, judges shall not
engage in any political activity, other than in relation to measures concerning
the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of
justice.
CANON 6
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS
E. Judicial Candidate
A candidate for judicial office shall comply with the provisions
of Canon 5.
