Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Public Has No Right to Statistics on Actions by CJP Prior to Formal Proceedings
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The state constitutional right of public access to government records does not require that statistical information be supplied which relates to any extent to complaints to the Commission on Judicial Performance that do not ripen into disciplinary proceedings, the Third District Court of Appeal decided on Friday.
Plaintiff Floyd Chodosh reported Orange Superior Court Judge Robert J. Moss to the commission and also wants the jurist prosecuted for alleged “judge crimes” which he defines as “crime by a judge done from the bench by misuse of office and breach of duty and oath, as opposed to ‘personal’ crime’ ” such as driving under the influence. Among other things, he sought an order to the commission to divulge the number of complaints it has forwarded to prosecutorial authorities.
In support of his cause of action, Chodosh cited Art. I, §3(b)(1) of the state Constitution which provides:
“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”
However, Justice Jonathan K. Renner pointed out in Friday’s opinion which affirms a judgment of dismissal, Art. VI, §18(i)(1) authorizes the commission to “make rules for the investigation of judges” including those “provide for the confidentiality of complaints to and investigations by the commission,” and one such rule, 102(a), provides that, with specified exceptions, “all papers filed with and proceedings before the commission shall be confidential.”
Confidentiality pertains, he noted, up until the time formal proceedings are instituted. The jurist wrote:
“The first amended complaint’s first cause of action seeks statistical information reflecting all referrals of possible criminal conduct by judges, whether or not formal proceedings have been initiated. Chodosh argues the requested statistical information would not implicate the Commission’s confidentiality rules, because the information “would reveal no names or detail, simply numbers.’ The Commission responds that the requested statistical information relates to actions taken and decisions made before the commencement of formal proceedings, and thus interferes with its confidentiality mandate. The Commission has the better argument.”
Renner said that in light of the small numbers of referrals for prosecutions, the identity of judges might be ascertainable, interfering with the confidentiality of the investigations and deliberations.
Demurrers to other causes of action were also found to have been properly sustained.
The case is Chodosh v. Commission on Judicial Performance, C091221.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company