Está en la página 1de 38
 
 TATE OF CALIFORNIA
 |A c^
BEFORE THE COMMI ION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCEINQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE BRUCE CLAYTON MILL ,NO. 201.REPORT OF THE PECIAL MA TER : FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLU ION OF LAWBy Notice of Formal Proceedings filed October 13, 2017, the Commission on Judicial Performance (the Commission) charged Contra Costa County uperior Court Judge Bruce Clayton Mills with two counts of willful misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, and improper action within the meaning of article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution. The Chief Justice of California appointed the undersigned, Justice Victoria G.Chaney, Presiding pecial Master, Justice Jennifer R. . Detjen, pecial Master, and Judge Paul A. Bacigalupo, pecial Master, to hear and take evidence. On January 17 and 18, 2018, we conducted an evidentiary hearing in an Francisco, California. We now submit this final report containing findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with rule 129 of the Rules of the Commission on Judicial Performance.As set forth below, we find Judge Mills’s conduct constitutes violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics that rise to the level of willful misconduct.
 
2
BACKGROUND
Judge Bruce Clayton Mills was a deputy district attorney in Contra Costa County for eight years before he was sworn in as a Contra Costa County Municipal Court judge in 1995. He was elevated to the superior court in 1998. (Ex. 23.) Prior to the events at issue in this matter, the Commission has disciplined Judge Mills five times during his 23 years on the bench. In 2001, the Commission issued a Notice of Intended Private
 Admonishment to Judge Mills based on conduct that ―fostered an
appearance that the judge was attempting to coerce or intimidate
[a] defendant into pleading guilty to the charge against him.‖
(Ex. 23.) In 2006, the Commission publicly admonished Judge Mills for improper ex parte communications, embroilment, and
for ―a pattern of maki
ng comments that are discourteous, sarcastic, demeaning and belittling to those appearing before him.
 (Ex. 24.) The Commission issued Judge Mills an advisory
letter in 2008 for ―[c]onditioning [a] defendant‘s release on
posting bail for the improper pur
pose of collecting restitution.‖
(Ex. 25.) In 2011, the Commission issued Judge Mills another
advisory letter for ―enabling [his] minor son to bypass the ordinary application process for going on a ‗ride along‘ ‖ to
accompany a police officer executing a warrant Judge Mills signed. (Ex. 26.) Finally, in 2013, the Commission publicly admonished Judge Mills for communicating with a courtroom
clerk and a pro tem judge in another department ―through channels not available to the public‖ about
a case involving his son. (Ex. 27.) We recite the background associated with this inquiry chronologically.
 
3
 A. P
EOPLE V 
.
 
J
EFFERS
(C
OUNT
T
 WO
)
 On March 23, 2016,
Ryan Smith (Smith), defendant‘s
counsel in
 People v. Jeffers
, Contra Costa County Superior Court No. 01-171912-9, left Judge Mills and deputy district attorney William Moser (Moser) in the courtroom as the jury retired to the  jury room to begin deliberations. (Exs. 20, 22; RT 106-107.)
1
 As Moser prepared to leave the courtroom, he and Judge Mills had a conversation. Moser recalls that Judge Mills asked him, specifically in the context of the
Jeffers
trial, ―do you want to know what I would have done?‖
and talked to him about an
argument that might have ―def 
eat[ed]
the defense theory.‖ (
RT 107-108.) Judge Mills recalls
the conversation as a ―war story‖
about a similar case he had when he was a deputy district attorney. (Ex. 22.) Moser reported the conversation to his supervisor, Nancy Georgiou (Georgiou). (Ex. 21.) On March 24, 2016
 — 
the day after the conversation
 — 
Georgiou called Smith to disclose the conversation; she also disclosed the conversation to Judge John Kennedy, the supervising judge of the Contra Costa County criminal courts. (Ex. 21.) Judge Steve Austin, Contra Costa
County‘s Presiding Judge, also learned of the communication on
March 24. (RT 90.) On March 29, 2016, Judge Austin met with Judge Mills to discuss the Mills-Moser conversation. (RT 90-91.) Judge Austin told Judge Mills that the matte
r was ―potentially serious,‖
told him that Judge Austin might have to report that communication to the Commission, and gave Judge Mills a copy of the
Commission‘s Public Admonishment of Judge Stuart Scott. (RT
1
 
Citations to the reporter‘s transcript are to the January 17, 2018 reporter‘s transcript.
 

Recompense su curiosidad

Todo lo que desea leer.
En cualquier momento. En cualquier lugar. Cualquier dispositivo.
Sin compromisos. Cancele cuando quiera.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505