Superior Court Judge
My opponent, the incumbent, has been disciplined three (3) times by the California Commission on Judicial Performance. His offenses involve numerous violations of the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District (in Fresno County) has overturned the incumbent’s judicial rulings numerous times, after finding that he failed to properly follow the law.*
The people of
The following is the published summary by the California Commission on Judicial Performance describing the incumbent’s inappropriate behavior as a judge. Below that is a link that will take you to a document on the Web giving more details of each case.
________________________________________
State of
Commission on Judicial Performance
PUBLIC DISCIPLINE
Public Admonishment by the Commission
The Commission may publicly or privately admonish a judge for improper action or dereliction of duty. Public admonishments are issued in cases when the improper action or dereliction of duty is more serious than conduct warranting a private admonishment. In 2007, five public admonishments were issued.
Public Admonishment of
Judge James M. Petrucelli
May 22, 2007
Judge James M. Petrucelli, of the Fresno County Superior Court, was publicly admonished for conduct that constituted, at a minimum, improper action, pursuant to Commission Rules 115-116 (governing public admonishments).
The Commission found that Judge Petrucelli engaged in a pattern of conduct contrary to canon 3B(4) while presiding in family law and traffic matters, which included making discourteous, sarcastic or demeaning comments to attorneys and litigants appearing before him.
In one family law case, after an attorney wrote the calendar line item number rather than a case number on a form used by the court clerk to locate files, the judge angrily scolded the attorney in an elevated tone of voice for “lack of cooperation,” and accused him of chastising and attempting to talk over the court.
In another family law case, the judge made a statement to an attorney who had stated her client’s position regarding her ex-husband’s request for unsupervised visitation with their children, to the effect of, “If your client persists in this behavior, I will do everything in my power to see that custody is taken away from her.” The comment was contrary to canon 3B(4) and reflected embroilment.
In a third family law case, the judge improperly disparaged an attorney who was seeking to disqualify him; the judge intermittently used a loud, angry and abrasive tone of voice when making his demeaning and belittling comments in front of the attorney’s clients. The judge called the attorney’s conduct “deplorable,” said that her clients “could do much better without [her] today,” stated that she had caused her clients “a lot of grief,” and said that he would disqualify himself in all her cases because he thought she was “not an appropriate counsel for people in this situation.” The Commission found that Judge Petrucelli’s remarks were gratuitous and an improper response to an attempt to disqualify him.
In a fourth family law case, the judge said, “I wonder how well these parents would do without their lawyers.” The Commission found that the comment improperly disparaged the attorneys in front of their clients, and was demeaning and belittling.
In a fifth family law case, Judge Petrucelli asked a litigant he was questioning, “Is there a language problem here?” in a loud and angry tone of voice, made a gratuitous and sarcastic comment about the litigant’s having become involved in an affair with a woman in Mongolia because “it was cold and so you needed someone to stay warm with,” made belittling comments to the effect that the litigant must be a poor car salesman because his earnings were so low, and made sarcastic remarks about the litigant’s “new, young wife,” the “Mongolian lady.”
In a sixth family law case, the judge became involved in a heated argument with an attorney in chambers that lasted about five minutes. The judge was yelling.
In traffic court, Judge Petrucelli made remarks about an officer who had failed to appear to testify—because he was testifying at a driving under the influence trial in another court—that were disparaging to the officer and discourteous to other officers who were in court. The Commission found that the judge’s remarks were contrary to canon 3B(4), and were also contrary to canon 2A, in that they created the appearance of a lack of impartiality by publicly indicating that the judge was attempting to ensure the presence of officers to testify for the prosecution.
In another instance, when a traffic litigant who had said she wished to “plead guilty with an explanation” was speaking about her case, Judge Petrucelli interrupted to say, “What could you possibly explain, that you think the radar was wrong or what? The fine is going up by the minute, so you understand. I mean, just tell me what you think you could possibly say to make me lower the fine?” The Commission found that by threatening that the fine was “going up by the minute,” the judge created the appearance that he was improperly trying to discourage the litigant from speaking before she was sentenced; in addition, the comment was inconsistent with canon 3B(4).
In another traffic matter, the judge told a litigant whose speed had been measured by radar that he did not see how the litigant was going to talk him out of going by the radar, and then said that if the litigant wanted to “try and embarrass” himself by telling the judge that he wasn’t going the measured speed, he could do so. The Commission found that the comment created the appearance that Judge Petrucelli was improperly trying to discourage the litigant from arguing his case and was contrary to canon 3B(4).
Finally, the judge made demeaning comments to a traffic litigant about his failure to notice a CHP officer behind him, remarking that CHP officers “drive those really funny looking cars” that are “different colors” and “usually…have lights on top,” and telling the litigant that the “rear view mirror is for something besides fixing your hair and stuff, you know.”
In determining that public admonishment was appropriate, the Commission noted that Judge Petrucelli received an advisory letter in 2001 for his inappropriate response to the filing of a peremptory challenge, and another advisory letter in 2001 for an incident in which he raised his voice at county employees and accused them of calling him a “liar,” and for his practice regarding disqualification and disclosure as to an attorney employed by his former law firm.
For a more detailed description of the misconduct discussed above, you can review the Commission’s additional report by clicking on the link below.
http://cjp.ca.gov/userfiles/file/Public_Admon/Petrucelli_05-22-07.pdf
________________________________________________
*The Court of Appeal for the Fifth District has overturned the incumbent’s judicial rulings on more than one occasion, after finding that he failed to properly follow the law. These ae a few examples:
In one case the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that:
- " . . . [Petrucelli] failed to consider the appropriate [law] . . ."
- " . . . we will reverse [Petrucelli’s order] . . . because the court failed to also consider the other statutory factors governing its decision."
- "We conclude the court abused its discretion . . ."
(Court of Appeal of
In another case the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled:
(Court of Appeal of § “. . . [Petrucelli] failed to give appellant any of his constitutional rights . . .” § “. . . we must reverse and remand for further proceedings . . .” (Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District, filed 1/27/2010, F057091)
In yet another recent case from 2010, the Incumbent ignored over 40 years of well established law and failed to properly conduct a simple court hearing, wasting taxpayer dollars and time on appeals. The Fifth District Court of appeal held:
____________________________________
The people of
On June 8, 2010
Vote
Gary Shinaver
Judge
Copyright . Gary Shinaver. All rights reserved.
