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 | Howard R. |
| Last Name | Broadman |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 108 |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Tulare |
| Discipline/Determination | Censure |
| Decision By | Supreme Court |
| Date of Decision | 08/10/1998 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Comment on a pending case Off-bench abuse of office/misuse of court information On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Broadman induced a criminal defendant and his counsel into waiving time for sentencing without disclosing the purpose of the waiver, which was to allow the judge to consider eliminating medical treatment for the defendant while in prison. The judge commented publically on two criminal cases that were pending either in his court or in the Court of Appeal, after being disciplined by the commission for similar comments. The judge also tried to affect the outcome of a legal malpractice case pending before another judge, which involved an attorney against whom Judge Broadman bore personal animosity. The Supreme Court noted a lack of candor and integrity on the judge’s part. |
| Documents |