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 | Anthony C. |
| Last Name | Edwards |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Trinity |
| Discipline/Determination | Public admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 04/12/2010 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Decisional delay/false salary affidavits Demeanor/decorum Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Non-performance of judicial functions/attendance/sleeping On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | After disqualifying himself based on a close personal relationship with Corrie Floris and her family, Judge Edwards presided over Floris’s felony arraignment. During the arraignment, Judge Edwards made inquiries of his wife, an attorney, who was present with Floris and who asked Judge Edwards to appoint a public defender to represent Floris. As Judge Edwards left the courtroom after the arraignment, he walked by the jury box where Floris and other in-custody defendants were sitting and hugged Floris. The commission rejected Judge Edwards’s argument that he was authorized to conduct the arraignment despite his disqualification because the only other judge in Trinity County was also disqualified. Even if a visiting judge was not available to arraign Floris within the time prescribed by law, the court would not have lost jurisdiction. Further, hugging Floris in open court created the appearance of bias and otherwise created the appearance of impropriety. Around noon on a Friday afternoon, Judge Edwards took his clerk and deputy marshall to lunch in his plane. They did not return until approximately 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., even though the clerk was expected back in court at 1:00 p.m., and Judge Edwards had matters calendared at 1:30 p.m. Judge Edwards later reprimanded the Court Executive Officer (CEO) for speaking with the clerk about her absence and directed the CEO to remove any mention of the incident from the clerk’s personnel file and to pay the clerk overtime for keeping her after hours to speak about the incident. The commission concluded that Judge Edwards’s conduct reflected a disregard of the court’s obligation to the public, undermined confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and created an appearance of favoritism. In a misdemeanor matter, Judge Edwards scheduled an arraignment before himself despite his recusal under circumstances that gave an appearance of preferential treatment to the defendant. Judge Edwards also engaged in misconduct by dismissing certain infractions and misdemeanors without legal authority because the defendants were cited to appear in Weaverville when they lived in Hayfork. Judge Edwards created an appearance of bias when he commented in a crowded courtroom that a certain misdemeanor “was just another example of the DA overcharging.” In another matter, Judge Edwards failed to maintain decorum in the courtroom by failing to ask a potential juror, whom he knew personally, to remove a tinfoil hat worn as a joke during court proceedings. In California, judicial officers are expected to decide cases within 90 days of the date they are taken under submission. Between 2005 and 2008, Judge Edwards failed to decide at least four matters within 90 days of submission. The commission determined that the conduct of Judge Edwards in these matters was, at minimum, improper action warranting a public admonishment. |
| Documents |