Contra Costa County judge appeals removal to state Supreme Court

Warning "this case should cause concern to every judge in California," attorneys for Contra Costa County Judge John T. Laettner wrote in a petition for state Supreme Court review of the Commission on Judicial Performance's decision to remove him from the bench.

The commission ruled against Laettner in November following extensive oral arguments. The watchdog body found he committed five acts of willful misconduct and 11 acts of prejudicial misconduct.

These related to allegations of extensive and varied misconduct on the bench, from improper communications, failing to recuse himself from matters involving his deputy district attorney son, violating defendants' due process rights and a pattern of inappropriate comments. That order cited "clear and convincing" evidence of his misconduct and found the judge "displayed a pattern of inappropriate treatment of women in his courtroom that reflects bias based on gender, as well as physical appearance."

The 79-page petition filed by James A. Murphy on Monday claims the commission failed to prove much of the misconduct alleged, allowed claims that were time-barred, improperly denied exculpatory witnesses and ignored evidence of bias against Laettner among witnesses who were allowed to testify. The petition also claims, "Removal is an unduly harsh punishment inconsistent with other commission decisions."

"The commission disciplines judges for denying litigants' due process, so it is only right that the commission affords due process to judges as well," the founding shareholder with Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney in San Francisco, wrote in an email Tuesday. "We believe Judge Laettner was denied due process and that is a primary reason why we are petitioning the Supreme Court for review."

The commission's director and chief counsel, Gregory P. Dresser, confirmed his office received the petition, but he had not had a chance to review it.

Murphy's petition to the state Supreme Court painted a picture of a judge who admitted his mistakes and engaged in "over 90 hours of counseling with six different judges" to correct his prior errors, but who instead was railroaded by an unfair process.

The brief noted Laettner served "13 years on the bench, having been elected three times and with no prior history of discipline from the commission or any other regulatory body." Murphy added the panel of special masters who ordered Laettner removed found he has "an exemplary work ethic, is a responsible and conscientious judge."

The petition then cited the panel's finding "that Judge Laettner's misconduct, which was severely aggravated by his lack of candor during the proceedings and his selective and limited acknowledgment of that misconduct, warranted his removal from office."

"Lack of candor ... was not included in the Notice of Formal Proceedings ... as mandated by Rule 118(c)," Murphy wrote. He noted Laettner was provided neither notice of a charge concerning lack of candor nor "a full opportunity to address those allegations," and they were "not proven by clear and convincing evidence." He went on to call the "lack of candor" claim "a pseudo-charge that can be used to punish judges without properly charging it."

"The commission itself acknowledges that without the 'lack of candor' charge, petitioner would not have been removed," Murphy wrote.

The problems with the claims of dishonesty were exacerbated by Laettner being denied the right to admit declarations from four witnesses who would back up his version of events, the petition added. These included a now-retired judge, a deputy district attorney and two sheriff's deputies. Murphy also said the special masters who heard the case found no evidence of sexual harassment by Laettner.

Murphy went on to note "all but one complaining witness was a member of the Contra Costa County public defender's office," suggesting these witnesses were frequently upset by the judge's "adverse rulings on bail." Some in the defender's office had a "motive behind the complaint" that "calls into question the credibility of some of these claims," Murphy wrote, but said he was not allowed to raise these issues during Laettner's hearings.

The petition also noted the allegations involved Laettner's actions between 2006 until 2017, when the investigation was first opened. Five of the charges were time-barred, Murphy argued, because they occurred more than six years before the beginning of Laettner's current term.