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 | Vincent J. |
| Last Name | McGraw |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 169 |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Fresno |
| Discipline/Determination | Censure and bar |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 04/03/2003 |
| Method of Resolution | Stipulation |
| Types of Misconduct | Improper political activities Off-bench abuse of office/misuse of court information |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | During his campaign for reelection to judicial office, Judge McGraw made knowingly false statements to a TV news reporter, denying previous private discipline by the commission for using his court computer to access pornographic Internet sites. The judge denied that he had accessed pornography on his court computer and that he had admitted it to his presiding judge. He threatened to sue the TV station if it broadcast a story containing the allegations, even though he knew the allegations were true. Additionally, the judge improperly used the court's internal mail in connection with his reelection campaign, solicited court employees during court hours to assist in his campaign, used a photo of court employees in campaign literature without authorization, and handled campaign matters during court hours while litigants were waiting. |
| Documents |