Public Decisions Database
This database contains decisions on all public judicial disciplinary cases since the inception of the commission in 1960. Cases not involving public charges or public discipline remain confidential under the California Constitution and the commission’s rules.
Pursuant to amendments to the Constitution, which took effect in March 1995, the commission is authorized to impose all disciplinary sanctions, subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court. Prior to that, the Supreme Court had the authority to censure or remove judges from office upon recommendation by the commission.
Case Profile
New Search| First Name | Jeffrey G. |
| Last Name | Bennett |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 206 |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Ventura |
| Discipline/Determination | Censure |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 03/25/2020 |
| Method of Resolution | Stipulation |
| Types of Misconduct | Bias/Appearance of Bias Toward a Particular Class Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Demeanor/decorum Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Bennett was disciplined for crude, dishonest, sexist, and profane remarks, some of which created the appearance of bias and retaliation. The comments included remarks to an African American defendant about “shucking and jiving,” references to his “balls” and his “ass,” commenting about “chicks” liking a car and about not spending so much time with his telescope if he had a “20-year-old smoking hot wife,” and other remarks that included profanity. Judge Bennett made statements to an attorney that were false and appeared to retaliate against the attorney for (perceived) participation in a prior commission investigation. Judge Bennett also improperly commented about peremptory challenges. Judge Bennett engaged in a pattern of undignified and discourteous comments to prosecutors that created an appearance of bias against them. Judge Bennett’s misconduct was aggravated by prior discipline for similar misconduct. Judge Bennett’s misconduct was mitigated by acknowledging his misconduct and stipulating to a resolution of the matter. |
| Documents |