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 T. |
| Last Name | Laettner |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 203 |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Contra Costa |
| Discipline/Determination | Removal from office |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 11/06/2019 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Ex parte communications Failure to ensure rights Sexual harassment/inappropriate workplace gender comments |
| Petition For Review | Denied 06/10/20 |
| Summary | Judge Laettner engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, including denying a criminal defendant due process by remanding her without exonerating and resetting bail in open court, and later increasing bail without a hearing and in the defendant’s absence; engaging in an improper substantive ex parte conversation with a prosecutor, outside the presence of a public defender; engaging in an improper ex parte conversation with a public defender in a public hallway of the courthouse in the presence of potential jurors; engaging in a pattern of misconduct toward a number of women, some of whom appeared before him as attorneys, that was unwelcome, undignified, discourteous, and offensive, that constituted gender bias, and that conveyed the impression that certain attorneys were in a special position to influence him; making comments in the presence of and/or about his long-time court reporter that were undignified and discourteous, and that constituted gender bias and sexual harassment; revoking a defendant’s own-recognizance release in the defendant’s absence and without an opportunity to be heard, and giving the appearance of retaliating for a public defender’s exercise of a peremptory challenge; failing to disclose his son’s employment with the district attorney’s office (or recuse) in some cases in which the district attorney’s office appeared; and improperly discussing, ex parte, peremptory challenges with deputy public defenders who were filing them against him. The commission determined that Judge Laettner engaged in “a significant amount of misconduct,” including five acts of willful misconduct and eleven acts of prejudicial misconduct. The commission adopted the findings of the special masters that Judge Laettner “was not credible or not truthful as it relates to his testimony concerning several events making up this inquiry.” The commission also determined that Judge Laettner failed to acknowledge the impropriety of the majority of his misconduct. The commission concluded that Judge Laettner’s misconduct, which was severely aggravated by his lack of candor during the proceedings and his selective and limited acknowledgment of that misconduct, warranted removal. |
| Documents |