Home Local & Regional News Commission on Judicial Performance Begins Proceedings Concerning Judge Mallery

Commission on Judicial Performance Begins Proceedings Concerning Judge Mallery

0
1480

by Jeremy Couso
SusanvilleStuff Publisher

California’s Commission on Judicial Performance has instituted formal proceedings to inquire into matters concerning Lassen County Superior Court Judge Tony R. Mallery, according to details provided by the Commission Wednesday.

The commencement of formal proceedings is not a determination of judicial misconduct, and you can read a copy of the Notice of Formal Proceedings posted on the commission’s website.

There are twenty-one counts detailed in the formal proceedings that include allegations such as, “willful misconduct in office, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, and improper action within the meaning of article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution providing for removal, censure, or public or private admonishment of a judge or former judge.

According to the Commission, Judge Mallery’s Answer to the Notice is due September 29th.

Upon filing, the judge’s answer will be made available for public inspection.

In accordance with the rules that govern commission proceedings, a hearing will be conducted by special masters appointed by the Supreme Court. At the hearing, the parties will have an opportunity to introduce evidence and examine and cross-examine witnesses.

Commission Trial Counsel Mark A. Lizarraga, and Assistant Trial Counsel Bradford Battson will serve as Examiners for the commission. Judge Mallery is represented by Attorney James A. Murphy of San Francisco.

Following completion of the hearing, the special masters will provide the commission with a report containing findings with respect to the charges. The parties will have an opportunity to present their views on the report to the commission through briefing and argument.

If the commission determines that the charges are proven by clear and convincing evidence, it is empowered to remove, censure, publicly admonish, or privately discipline the judge. Charges that the commission determines are not proven will be dismissed.

A determination by the commission to remove, censure, or admonish a judge is subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court upon petition by the judge.