PERCEPTIONS OF AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEMS

California News & Views

Click headlines for full story

June 2007

Judge David M. Brooks Should Have Been
Thrown Out of Office a Long Time Ago

June 1, 2007 Appellate Court Opinion

Previous Public Admonishment

Withering.

Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics (Cal. Ct. App. - June 4, 2007)
posted by Shaun Martin – California Appellate Report Blog

That's all I can say about this opinion by Justice Rylaarsdam. Which slams -- and I mean, slams -- Judge James M. Brooks (in Orange County). . . . It's rare that you see a judgment reversed for judicial misconduct. And even rarer that you see a reversal with such a damning indictment of what transpired below. . . . Here are just a few snippets from Justice Rylaarsdam's opinion. Which deserves a full read anyway, since that's the only way one can get a complete picture of the kind of antics that went on in the trial court:

"The delineated exchanges between the court and counsel are the antithesis of judicial decorum and courtesy. . . . [T]he judge instigated and encouraged many of the[ abusive comments towards plaintiff's counsel]. He also allowed, indeed helped create, a circus atmosphere, giving defendants’ lawyer free rein to deride and make snide remarks at will and at the expense of plaintiffs and their lawyer. . . . The 'overruled' signs also demonstrated the court’s lack of courtesy and decorum. . . . This conduct was a sideshow in the overall circus atmosphere mocking a serious proceeding important to the parties. . . . Defendants challenge plaintiffs’ argument that the court used these signs only when ruling on their objections. Again, this misses the mark. It is like saying a baseball team could not complain if the umpire decided to call balls and strikes with his eyes closed, as long as he kept them closed for both teams. . . . Here the judge and defendants’ lawyer had fun by making plaintiffs’ lawyer the butt of their jokes. They took turns providing straight lines and punch lines to each other in a way that could only convey to the jury that they were a team and plaintiffs’ counsel was an outsider."

Sadly, this does not appear to be an isolated incident for Judge Brooks. He was publicly admonished last year for absurd, similar misconduct in a number of different cases. And apparently received advisory letters in 1996 and 1999, as well as a private admonishment in 2003, for, inter alia, making improper comments that reflected improper demeanor and ethnic and other bias.

Judge criticized for courtroom antics

The Orange County Register

6-6-07 -- Orange County Superior Court Judge James M. Brooks, whose courtroom manner has been repeatedly criticized by the state, has drawn a new stinging rebuke from a state appeals court panel, which overturned his ruling in a civil case because of his courtroom's "circus atmosphere." . . . In 2003, James Haluck and Michael Litton sued their employer, Tustin-based Ricoh Electronics, and five employees, alleging they were passed over for promotions. The jury sided with Ricoh Electronics, awarding the men nothing, said their attorney Michelle Reinglass. . . . The engineers appealed in 2005, alleging Brooks' misconduct denied them of a fair trial. . . .In an opinion made public June 1, a three-justice panel from the 4th District Court of Appeal condemned Brooks' behavior, and ordered that Haluck and Litton be granted a new trial – before a different judge. . . . The panel cited several instances of judicial misconduct. One time, Brooks held up a sign he made that read "overruled" when addressing a plaintiffs' objection. The next day, the defense attorney gave the judge a different "overruled" sign, stating, "Your honor, I wanted to help you if I may. This is a much nicer version." . . . Brooks replied: "Better than my homemade one."

O.C. judge reprimanded over court antics

Appeals court, finding he acted like a circus ringleader, orders new trial in job discrimination case.

By Christine Hanley, Times Staff Writer
6-6-07 -- Orange County Superior Court Judge James M. Brooks has again been reprimanded for misbehaving, this time by a state appeals court that found he acted more like a circus ringleader than an officer of the court during a job discrimination trial that he let devolve into one sideshow after another. . . . The 4th District Court of Appeal overturned the judge's decision and ordered a new trial, finding the cumulative effect of Brooks' antics so egregious that they undermined a fair trial for two employees of an electronics company who had alleged they were passed over for promotions and later dismissed for complaining about reverse discrimination. . . . Plaintiffs James Haluck and Michael Litton, former employees of Tustin-based Ricoh Electronics, had been awarded nothing by the jury after a 30-day trial before Brooks. They appealed in 2003. . . . "It is obvious that much of the judge's conduct was not malicious but rather a misguided attempt to be humorous, and defendants' lawyer played into it, often acting as the straight man," the three-judge panel ruled. "But a courtroom is not the Improv, and the presider's role model is not Judge Judy."

More good stuff on Judge James Brooks

Posted on ElectricLawyer

6-6-07 -- Stuff just keeps rolling in. Turns out Judge Brooks was admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance for sarcastically telling a defendant with heart problems his "little ticker might stop" in jail. The Commission published three prior private admonitions. In one, Judge Brooks referred to Latino defendants collectively as "Pedro." In another case he told a defendant that "you have more names than the Tijuana telephone book," and in a third he issued a bench warrant for an Asian-American defendant for "$10,000 or 20,000 yen." The document may be found here. . . . Now get this: in 1989 the Orange County Constitutional Rights Foundation named him Judge of the Year! What is that about, and who are these folks?

Judge Brooks has done this before

Posted on ElectricLawyer

6-6-07 -- In Hernandez v. Paicius  109 Cal.App.4th 452, 455 (Cal.App.4.Dist.2003) the court of appeal starts by saying, "First, we note the remarks of the trial court give the appearance the court held preconceived ideas based on stereotypes of undocumented aliens. The comments raise doubts about the fairness and impartiality of the proceeding and cast the judicial system itself in a bad light in the eyes of the litigants and the public at large." The decision ends by saying, "One hundred years ago, our Supreme Court cautioned against judges making oral pronouncements wholly out of accord with recognized principles of fairness. It stated: “The trial of a case should not only be fair in fact, but it should also appear to be fair. And where the contrary appears, it shocks the judicial instinct to allow the judgment to stand.” [Citations.] Such a case is presented here. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial, with directions to the presiding judge of the superior court to assign the matter to a different judge." . . . So the bottom line on Judge Brooks is that the case I reported earlier today is not just a misguided attempt at heavy-handed humor. Judge Brooks has a serious problem. So why isn't the Commission on Judicial Performance doing anything about it?

American Homeowners Resource Center has

Information about Judge James Brooks

&

Judge Admonished? Astonishing!! Part Deux....