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 | D. Ronald |
| Last Name | Hyde |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 138 |
| Court Level | Municipal Court |
| County/Appellate District | Alameda |
| Discipline/Determination | Censure |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 05/10/1996 |
| Method of Resolution | Stipulation |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff Failure to cooperate/lack of candor with regulatory authorities Misuse of court resources Non-performance of judicial functions/attendance/sleeping Off-bench abuse of office/misuse of court information Sexual harassment/inappropriate workplace gender comments |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Hyde used court employees to access Department of Motor Vehicles records for purposes not related to court business. He also used court staff to perform secretarial functions for non-court purposes, used official stationery for personal business, used a county fax machine for personal business, and used court staff and a county vehicle to deliver his application for a federal judgeship and to retrieve forms related to the judge's candidacy for reelection. The judge brought his young daughter to work, where court staff watched her, and had a court employee pick up his daughter from school during work hours. The judge gave the impression of intimidating the court's clerk/administrator when he questioned the judge about the use of court employees. The judge failed to report income on his Statement of Economic Interests. The judge made sexually related comments to female court employees. He also was absent from court without reporting the days as vacation and regularly left the courthouse early on Fridays. |
| Documents |