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 | John D. |
| Last Name | Kirihara |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Merced |
| Discipline/Determination | Public Admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 05/16/2012 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Decisional delay/false salary affidavits Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | The judge had three matters under submission that were delayed beyond ninety days, two of which were significantly delayed, and allowed 11 false salary affidavits to be processed on his behalf. The commission found that the judge’s indifference was reflected in his failure to keep a list of submitted matters, his failure to respond to emails from a judicial assistant asking that he let her know if he had cases under submission, and his failure to circulate a list of submitted matters to other judges when Judge Kirihara was presiding judge. The commission further found that Judge Kirihara’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he delayed matters and allowed false salary affidavits to be processed when he was presiding judge. |
| Documents |