A panel of special masters appointed by the state Supreme Court last month rejected nearly all of the charges of misconduct brought against Harris by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

The special masters-Court of Appeal Justice Eileen C. Moore of the Fourth District's Div. Three, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Morris, and Ventura Superior Court Judge Henry J. Walsh-heard evidence for five days in Pasadena in May.

The CJP accused Harris, who announced during the hearing that he intends to retire in October, of seeking to establish personal relationships with sexual assault victims, making inappropriately personal comments to jurors, attorneys, and court staff, throwing a file at a deputy city attorney, and lying during an investigation into his conduct.

The masters rejected charges that after two felony sexual assault trials in 2000, Harris met in chambers with the victims and sought to initiate personal relationships.

Harris acknowledged that he spoke to the victims in chambers and that the meetings were improper because the cases were not yet final. But he testified that he sought only to comfort the victims because he was moved by their plight, and did not intend to have any extensive or improper continuing relationships with them.

The masters found that testimony credible, citing many witnesses who said that Harris was a empathetic person by nature and noting that although he has been a judge for many years, he was new to handling felony sex crimes.

The masters also found that the commission had failed to prove that comments made by Harris to or about female attorneys, court staff members, or jurors on various occasions were inappropriately flirtatious or sexual. The comments included invitations to have lunch, a remark that a staff member was "cute," and thanking a lawyer for not challenging an attractive female juror because a judge "has to have something to look at during trial."

The panel accepted Harris' testimony that in hindsight, he recognizes that some of his remarks could have been taken as offensive, but that he had no intention of making anyone feel ill at ease.

A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 15 in Pasadena regarding Ross, who was charged May 7 with three counts of judicial misconduct.

Ventura Superior Court Judge Vincent J. O'Neill, Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice Judith Haller, and San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Michael A. Smith are the special masters named to conduct the hearing, which was postponed from September after the commission brought additional charges.

The CJP asserted in its original formal notice of proceedings that Ross made comments about pending cases on a public television program on four occasions, was twice absent from court without authorization, and in four instances treated criminal defendants inappropriately. Last month it added allegations that the jurist improperly sought to market a courtroom simulation television program in which he would star.

The CJP originally cited appearances by Ross, a former prosecutor, on the KCET public television program "Life and Times Tonight" during 2001 and 2002. Ross, a frequent guest on the public affairs discussion program, gained a seat on the Inglewood Municipal Court in 1998 by defeating Judge Lawrence Mason and became a Superior Court judge upon unification in 2000.

Among the canons of the Code of Judicial Ethics violated by the four appearances, the CJP asserted, is Canon 3B(9), which says that a judge shall not shall not "make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court."

Both of the unauthorized absence allegations also relate to public appearances made by the judge.
In March of 2000, the CJP alleged, Ross arrived about an hour late because he was giving a radio interview about Proposition 21, a juvenile crime initiative statute.

In April of 2002 he asked for and was granted two days off to attend a California Association of Black Lawyers conference in Palm Springs. In fact, the CJP claims, there were no conference events scheduled during the first day and Ross spent the time taping a "Life and Times Tonight" segment and attending an inner-city economic summit.

In his June 15 response, Ross said his television appearances were consistent with the California courts' efforts to educate the public on the judicial process and noted that other judicial officers had appeared with him or on similar programs. He also contended that the restrictions on judicial comment on pending cases are unconstitutional.

With respect to the March 2000 incident, Ross acknowledged giving the interview and taking the bench about 9:30 a.m. But he denied that court business was interrupted, saying he normally did not take the bench much earlier than that since he was presiding over a mass calendar court where much of the first hour of the court day was taken up with check-ins and attorney-client discussions.

He also charged that the then-site judge in Inglewood, Eric Taylor, who complained about his lateness, was actually upset because Ross was supporting then-Deputy District Attorney Patricia Titus in an impending election contest with Commissioner Deborah Christian, whom Taylor and most of the other judges in the courthouse were backing.
Titus won the election. Christian was subsequently appointed a Superior Court judge by then-Gov. Gray Davis.

The CJP also cited four instances in which Ross allegedly improperly communicated with criminal defendants or became "embroiled" in their cases and "abandoned [his] judicial role." Ross denied any improprieties in his response.

In the amended notice filed Sept. 1, the CJP said the judge contracted in 2002 with a production company for a show to be called "Mobile Court." Ross was to resolve small claims cases, with the parties stipulating to be bound by his rulings, the notice asserted.

The show's premise allegedly was that the hearing would take place at the scene of the dispute. In the videotape produced to market the program, Ross heard a vandalism claim in a neighborhood where the vandalism occurred, the notice claimed.

"In a second case, called 'Beauty and the Beast,'" the CJP alleged, "you held 'court' in a strip club, and awarded an 'erotic model' $1,000 for being unfairly disqualified from a 'Miss Wet on the Net' contest."
The videotape was shown to representatives of television stations, but found no buyers, the CJP asserted.

On the videotape, Ross presided over the cases as "Judge Kevin Ross," and the marketing efforts listed him as "judge/host," the CJP said. Among the ethical canons violated by Ross' conduct, the CJP asserted, was Canon 2B(2), which provides that a judge "shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others."
Ross' contract provided he would be paid $5,000, the CJP claimed.

In response to the new charge, Ross released a statement conceding that he appeared in the video, but saying he did so on his own time and turned over the money he received to the county.