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 | Gary G. |
| Last Name | Kreep |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 198 |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | San Diego |
| Discipline/Determination | Censure |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 08/17/2017 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Demeanor/decorum Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Ex parte communications Failure to ensure rights Improper business, financial or fiduciary activities Improper political activities On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties Sexual harassment/inappropriate workplace gender comments |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | The commission determined that Judge Kreep engaged in 29 acts of judicial misconduct: one act of willful misconduct, 17 acts of conduct prejudicial and 11 acts of improper action between 2012 and 2015. The commission determined that the acts of conduct prejudicial and willful misconduct afforded a sufficient basis for a severe public censure. Those acts included misconduct during his judicial campaign, making numerous comments in the courtroom reflecting a lack of courtroom decorum and an appearance of bias, engaging in an improper ex parte communication, acting out of hostility toward the San Diego City Attorney’s Office after they filed a “blanket” challenge against the judge, soliciting legal opinions from counsel not on the case and telling an African-American court employee that she should not say she did not win a Halloween costume contest “due to racism” or words to that effect. |
| Documents |