Judges and Judiciary
Jun. 26, 2002
CJP Hears of Courtroom Strife
SAN FRANCISCO - The attorney for Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Van Voorhis, facing a second set of misconduct charges for harsh treatment of court personnel, argued Monday that the judge's alleged rudeness had been taken out of context.
Van Voorhis, 53, who was publicly reproved in 1992 for being rude to court staff and attorneys, faces new misconduct charges by the Commission on Judicial Performance for "harsh and gratuitous" treatment of lawyers, court clerks, a deputy sheriff and jurors during courtroom proceedings from June 1999 to February 2001.
His attorney, James A. Murphy, of San Francisco's Murphy Pearson Bradley and Feeney, urged a three-judge panel of special masters to consider the circumstances in which the judge's comments and conduct occurred. He attributed some incidents to Van Voorhis' attempts to "control the courtroom" and argued that Van Voorhis' displays of anger happened "in the heat of contested matters."
Monday's evidentiary hearing was held before Court of Appeal Justices Thomas E. Hollenhorst of Riverside and Kenneth R. Yegan of Ventura, and Superior Court Judge Roy B. Cazares of San Diego in a small, ornate courtroom of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Van Voorhis attended the hearing, often conferring with his attorney during testimony.
He also is accused of making racially insensitive remarks during a January 2000 trial to Deputy Public Defender Esteban Alvear, a native of Ecuador. The jurist called Alvear's accent "charming" but said he might want to "lose that accent" because jurors might not understand him. The judge has said he does not remember making the comment. Murphy said there were times Alvear was "hard to understand" but asserted the judge's comments were "not meant to be pejorative or racist." Murphy compared the matter to hearing someone with a strong New York or Boston accent.
The charges also include accusations that Van Voorhis deliberately made an incorrect ruling in a January 2001 DUI trial when he granted a defense motion to suppress statements made by a defendant before sobriety tests were administered. After the trial, he told former Deputy District Attorney Stacey Brock, an attorney with less than three months' experience, that she had indeed been legally entitled to introduce the statements but he had suppressed the evidence "just to see how she would handle it."
Murphy argued the ruling was "well-reasoned and factually correct" and that the jurist did not make an "intentionally wrong ruling" just to get Brock's reaction. Rather, Murphy said, Van Voorhis made the comments after Brock asked him for a critique of her handling of the case and implied they were an attempt to "toughen up" the neophyte prosecutor.
Brock, who said she thought the ruling to suppress the statements was wrong, testified that the judge was "yelling and angry" at her during the trial and "berated" her in front of the jury." Van Voorhis' treatment made her feel "humiliated and embarrassed," Brock testified.
Deputy District Attorney Danielle Douglas verified Brock's version of the incident, saying she was in "disbelief" that Van Voorhis essentially admitted making an erroneous ruling just for effect. "We both said, 'I can't believe he just said that.'"
Another former deputy district attorney, Kathleen McMurray, told the panel of similar mistreatment, saying Van Voorhis had treated her in a "hostile and condescending" manner and accused her of "leading the jury astray." The judge instructed the jury to "make fun of me and ridicule me" regarding her attempts to elicit testimony about a sobriety test in a DUI case, she said. "It was a devastating blow," McMurray said. "I was shocked and mortified."
Court clerk Kim Carmichael described being brought to tears when Van Voorhis threw a stack of files on her desk during court proceedings when he became angry that defendants were not present for a hearing.
Van Voorhis was an Alameda County deputy district attorney for 12 years before being elected to the Contra Costa County Municipal Court in 1986.
The masters will submit their factual findings to the commission, which can then chose to dismiss the case or impose punishments ranging from a private admonishment to removal from the bench.
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