In a bid to keep his job, judge admits crossing boundaries

SAN FRANCISCO -- In a last bid to save his job, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John T. Laettner told the state's judicial watchdog agency Wednesday he exceeded "boundaries" in his dealings with some women attorneys but insisted his testimony was accurate when it contradicted accounts of his accusers.

During oral arguments before the Commission on Judicial Performance, Laettner -- a former prosecutor and judge since 2006 facing allegations of willful and prejudicial misconduct -- alternated between concessions that he said "inappropriate things" to women in the Contra Costa County public defender's office while repeatedly denying he made false statements during his trial.

"Part of my problem now is a kind of hubris," Laettner said.

But Commission on Judicial Performance attorney Mark A. Lizarraga, who asked the commission to remove Laettner from the bench, focused on what he said was Laettner making false statements about revoking the release of defendants on their own recognizance. Inquiry Concerning Judge John T. Laettner (Commission on Judicial Performance, filed Sept. 19, 2018).

Relying on the June conclusions of a commission panel of special masters, consisting of 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice M. Kathleen Butz, Orange County Superior Court Judge Douglas J. Hatchimonji and Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Russell L. Hom, Lizarraga said the evidence supports his contention Laettner did not revoke the order.

Deputy Public Defender Jermel E. Thomas told Laettner she planned to seek his disqualification from the case, according to court papers. Thomas testified she never was told her client was being remanded into custody in 2013 for violating probation, and Lizarraga said that testimony is supported by the transcript, the prosecutor, and the judge's own contemporaneous notes.

"He is lying that he did this in the presence of counsel in a plainly stated voice," Lizarraga said.

Another misconduct count involved a case when Laettner brought a prosecutor into his chambers, asked him what he wanted to do with a case against Deputy Public Defender Krista K. Della-Piana's client, and failed to inform the defense lawyer of that contact "because he was mad at her," according to the special masters.

Laettner's attorneys have attacked the Contra Costa County public defender's office as the source of the complaints. During arguments earlier this year, James A. Murphy of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney in San Francisco said the office was "out to get Judge Laettner."

But Laettner's attorney, Janet L. Everson, did not focus on that allegation Wednesday, instead saying differing recollections of long-ago hearings do not prove Laettner was lying.

"That's his memory of events," she told commission member Anthony P. Capozzi, a lawyer on the commission. "It doesn't mean he's not telling the truth."

Defense lawyers said in court papers the harshest punishment Laettner should receive is a public admonishment if the special masters' conclusions are accepted.

Capozzi and other commission members questioned Laettner, who defended himself against claims of prejudicial misconduct for his remarks about female attorneys.

"I said some thoughtless and inappropriate things, but I had no salacious or wrongful intent," the judge said.

He also emphasized he has learned his lesson and hadn't made inappropriate remarks about womens' appearance or behavior since the commission complaint was filed. The judge is accused of telling female attorneys they were "lovely," "a pretty girl," and saying a former court reporter was "hot."

Laettner told Della-Piana that "your parents hadn't spanked you enough," according to the special masters' findings.

"I stand before you as a man who made mistakes," Laettner told the commission. "My statements weren't meant to embarrass anyone."

Commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with some of Laettner's answers, especially when he reiterated his recollections were accurate -- not possibly mistaken -- and his accusers were wrong, but Capozzi wondered if the allegations justify removing Laettner from the bench.

He compared the Laettner case to the commission's allegations against former San Diego County Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep, who was publicly censured last year but not removed from the bench until voters rejected his re-election bid.