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 | Mario P. |
| Last Name | Gonzalez |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 45 |
| Court Level | Municipal Court |
| County/Appellate District | Los Angeles |
| Discipline/Determination | Removal from office |
| Decision By | Supreme Court |
| Date of Decision | 02/07/1983 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class Demeanor/decorum Failure to ensure rights Gifts/loans/favors/ticket-fixing Miscellaneous off-bench conduct Non-performance of judicial functions/attendance/sleeping Off-bench abuse of office/misuse of court information On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Gonzalez interceded in criminal matters on behalf of friends and benefactors. He engaged in improprieties in bail-setting and own-recognizance release by offering to grant bail or release only as a personal favor and by requiring defense counsel to post personal funds in violation of State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. The judge abused his authority by refusing to hear a bail motion after a public defender objected to the judge’s direct questioning of his client, by conducting proceedings in the absence of counsel and by conditioning the release of an improperly incarcerated defendant on a stipulation to the validity of his arrest. The judge also conducted court business in violation of proper court procedures, impugned the integrity of his judicial colleagues, and made ethnic slurs both on and off the bench. |
| Documents |