Judges and Judiciary
Aug. 17, 2002
Dissident CJP Member Criticizes Expulsion
SAN FRANCISCO - The recent ouster of a judge for fixing traffic tickets was "excessively harsh," said the only member of the state's judicial watchdog group to vote against the removal.
Ramona Ripston, one of five public members of the state Commission on Judicial Performance, released a five-page dissent Thursday in which she argued that San Joaquin Superior Court Judge Michael E. Platt deserved public censure rather than expulsion.
She said he deserved leniency because of his past military valor and because his offenses "involved no financial or personal benefit or gain."
"I thought he should be punished, but to remove him from office and bar him from his profession as a lawyer was excessively harsh," Ripston said in an interview.
"It isn't that I'm loath to remove a judge who commits serious misconduct, but I didn't think this judge deserved removal. I've seen judges who've done worse and we didn't remove them," she said.
The commission voted 9-1 on Aug. 6 to remove Platt for fixing traffic tickets and interceding in cases for friends. It was the second time the jurist had faced misconduct charges. In 1997 he was privately admonished for improperly selling candy and soliciting donations to charitable organizations in the courthouse.
Unless the state Supreme Court intervenes, Platt's removal becomes final within 30 days of the commission vote. He would be barred from sitting on assignment.
Ripston, a member of the commission for five years, is executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. She called the release of the commission's judgment before she completed her dissent "an inadvertent error."
Other commission members declined to comment on her dissent.
Platt, 53, a former deputy district attorney, was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1994.
Ripston said the three-judge panel of special masters who heard the case concluded Platt was motivated by his desire to be "a rescuer."
But his "foolish" desire to fix tickets "for people he wanted to help" should not outweigh Platt's "outstanding record of service to his country, to his community and to the legal system," she wrote.
The commission's rejection of those mitigating factors was "entirely arbitrary and plainly erroneous," she added.
Platt was the third state trial judge removed by the commission in the past 15 months.
Platt had faced eight counts of violating ethical canons, including willful misconduct. He was found culpable for all charges except that he had improperly issued a stay in a detainer proceeding.
Ripston noted that several lawyers and judges testified on Platt's behalf.
"I would consider the fact that Judge Platt has demonstrated the qualities that warrant our having confidence in his ability to learn from his mistakes," Platt wrote in her dissent.
"I would credit the fact that he is capable of toughness, as demonstrated by the fact that he spent 15 years prosecuting criminal offenders, and was able during that period to overcome whatever 'rescuer' mentality might have caused him to want to come to the aid of those experiencing serious problems with the law."
That Platt's misconduct occurred shortly after a near-fatal heart attack he suffered while presiding over a death penalty case was another reason to "err on the side of lenity and compassion," she wrote.
In their report, the masters found that ticket-fixing was the "quintessential bad act of a judge."
The commission majority noted that Platt refused to take responsibility for some of the charges, concluding that his "failure to appreciate or admit to the impropriety ... indicates a lack of capacity to reform."
The commission's report also cited Platt's "pattern of misconduct" and his "continuing failure or inability to recognize when his professional responsibilities and personal proclivities clash."
Donna Domino
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