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	Harvey
Last Name	Giss
Title	Judge
Inquiry No.
Court Level	Superior Court
County/Appellate District	Los Angeles County
Discipline/Determination	Public admonishment
Decision By	Commission
Date of Decision	03/16/2011
Method of Resolution	Decision
Types of Misconduct	Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class
Petition For Review
Summary	After a criminal case was transferred to Judge Giss for trial in July 2010, the prosecutor and counsel for the co-defendants were in the judge’s courtroom discussing, off the record, the prospects for a plea agreement. According to the judge, he perceived that counsel wished him to intercede and explain the potential benefits of the plea offer to the defendants, which he did not believe he could do. Judge Giss made a remark to the effect that he guessed that the only thing that would make the defendants plead was for the judge to come out in a white sheet and a pointy white hat, which the judge indicated he would not do. His remark referenced the Ku Klux Klan and the fact that both defendants were African-American. When the defense requested that the judge recuse from the case, the judge conceded his remark was a “bad statement” but also remarked: “People don’t have a sense of humor anymore.” The judge’s comment regarding the Ku Klux Klan eventually resulted in the judge’s recusal from the case. The Commission found that Judge Giss should have known that his insensitive courtroom reference to a history of violence towards persons of the defendants’ ancestry, whether intended to make a valid point regarding his role as a judge or in jest, was offensive and inappropriate. The judge’s remark constituted a failure to refrain from speech that would reasonably be perceived as bias or prejudice, in violation of canon 3B(5) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, a failure to be patient, dignified and courteous, in violation of canon 3B(4), and a failure to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, in violation of canon 2.
Documents	[ PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT ]