Judges and Judiciary
Oct. 15, 2016
Judge who was admonished is honored by peers
The Alliance of California Judges recognized judge who was criticized for treatment of potential jurors.
Daily Journal Staff Writer
During the Alliance of California Judges recent education conference, the group honored a judge who was publicly admonished in late September for his treatment of potential jurors prior to a 2014 gang murder trial.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Edmund W. Clarke Jr. was recognized by the alliance in Irvine last weekend.
The event took place just a little more than a week after the Commission on Judicial Performance admonished Clarke for "discourteous and undignified" treatment of four prospective jurors.
Clarke declined to comment on his recognition from the alliance.
Edith R. Matthai, a Los Angeles-based partner at Robie & Matthai PC who represents Clarke, previously told the Daily Journal she plans to appeal the commission's admonishment to the state Supreme Court.
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard, an alliance director, said the group would not comment for this story, including on the reasons the alliance decided to honor Clarke.
The alliance, which says it is made up of about 500 judicial officers, had previously filed an amicus curiae brief on Clarke's behalf with the Commission on Judicial Performance.
The brief, dated May 24, urged the commission to "defer to the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the special masters." The three special masters found Clarke committed no misconduct in all but one of five counts.
The alliance's brief also referred to Clarke as "a conscientious judge held in high regard by his peers."
In a decision issued Sept. 29, the commission found that Clarke's treatment of prospective jurors in counts one through four constituted misconduct.
The panel also noted that six months before Clarke's 2014 incident, it had sent the judge an advisory letter about conduct that included him calling a pro per defendant whom he believed had misrepresented the amount of funds in his pro per account "a ditherer, a dissembler, a poser and a fraud."
The California Judges Association said it "closely monitored" the CJP proceedings involving Clarke and will continue to do so.
The association declined to comment on his pending case but did offer a brief statement on the alliance honoring Clarke.
"CJA respects and acknowledges Judge Clarke for his recent recognition by the Alliance of California Judges and we appreciate his continued membership in CJA," the group said in a statement.
The CJA also recently submitted proposed changes to the rules of the Commission on Judicial Performance to be considered during the commission's biennial review. One of the proposals pertained to special masters.
The association recommended that the commission be bound by the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the masters in determining the imposition of discipline.
Meanwhile, at the alliance's recent conference titled "Crimes, Gangs, Rights, Due Process and the CJP," there was a panel discussion about the commission, according to an invitation.
Heather Rosing, chair of the professional liability department at Klinedinst PC in San Diego, was one of the panelists.
"It is good for the judges of the state to be interested in the workings of the commission and engaged in dialogue about ways to continually improve it," Rosing told the Daily Journal.
Lyle Moran
lyle_moran@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com