An Orange County judge who was publicly admonished last year for making improperly harsh statements and racially insensitive comments is in trouble again.
Today the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the outcome of an employment discrimination trial because they felt misconduct by Superior Court Judge James Brooks “so infected the proceedings” that the plaintiffs were denied a fair and impartial trial.
The justices unanimously condemned Brooks for, among other things, having improper ex parte contact with defense counsel, holding up handmade signs to “overrule” objections, using a soccer-style red-card system to discourage attorneys from talking, and instigating a “circus atmosphere” that encouraged defense lawyers to mimic the “Twilight Zone” theme song.
“It is obvious that much of the judge’s conduct was not malicious but rather a misguided attempt to be humorous; and defendants’ lawyer played into it, often acting as the straight man,” Justice William Rylaarsdam wrote (read the .pdf). “But a courtroom is not the Improv and the presider’s role model is not Judge Judy.
“We can only imagine what was in the jurors’ minds,” he added, “as they endured a 30-plus day trial in this atmosphere or the impression of the judicial system they took away with them post-trial.”
Justices David Sills and William Bedsworth concurred.
Just last November, Brooks was publicly admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance for misconduct in two separate cases.
Monday’s finding of misconduct by the Fourth District is likely to lead to another investigation by the CJP.
According to the ruling, Brooks was presiding over an employment discrimination case filed by James Haluck and Michael Litton, both Caucasians, against Ricoh Electronics Inc. and five of its executives, most of whom were either Asian or Middle Eastern. Jurors returned a defense verdict after a trial that ended in early 2005.
The plaintiffs and their attorney, Michelle Reinglass of Laguna Hills, appealed mostly based on Brooks’ conduct, and the Fourth District found that the judge’s actions were “sufficiently egregious” to warrant reversal.
Rylaarsdam and the other justices were appalled that Brooks had met privately with defense counsel to view a videotape that Reinglass had objected to being introduced as evidence. They were equally repulsed by a “circus atmosphere” created by the judge that encouraged defense lawyer Daniel Callahan, the managing partner of Santa Ana’s Callahan & Blaine, to mimic the “do do, do do, do do” theme from the classic “Twilight Zone” television show to mock the plaintiffs’ arguments.
The Fourth District also found faults with Brooks’ for displaying a “lack of courtesy and decorum” by holding up “overruled” signs, making one-sided comments that impugned the plaintiffs’ testimony and equating the trial with a soccer game by handing out red-card violations for alleged courtroom offenses.
“In instituting this game, the judge stated he wanted to ‘stop the talking,’” Rylaarsdam wrote. “However, apparently he only wanted to stop plaintiffs’ lawyers from talking. This unequal treatment improperly ‘created the impression that the trial judge was allied with [defendants].’”
Rylaarsdam noted that he, Sills and Bedsworth — having served on trial courts — “are well aware of the tremendous power the comments and attitude of a trial judge have on a jury. That power was repeatedly abused during this case and a passing admonition was not enough to cure it.”
The court’s spanking — er, ruling — is Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics Inc., G035681.
— Mike McKee
Comments