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 | L. Eugene |
| Last Name | Rasmussen |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 67 |
| Court Level | Justice Court |
| County/Appellate District | El Dorado |
| Discipline/Determination | Censure |
| Decision By | Supreme Court |
| Date of Decision | 04/23/1987 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Administrative malfeasance/improper comments, treatment of colleagues and staff Demeanor/decorum Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct Failure to ensure rights Off-bench abuse of office/misuse of court information On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Rasmussen publicly branded a coach at a youth sport's event as a "pervert" based on the judge's knowledge that the coach had once been convicted of child molestation. The judge initiated probation revocation proceedings on a probationer based on personal reasons other than the faithful discharge of his duties and on patently insufficient evidence. He communicated to a criminal defendant his likely sentence in the absence of counsel. The judge refused to disqualify himself from sentencing proceedings after having substantively communicated to the defendant his likely sentence in the absence of counsel. He improperly suggested that the State Bar investigate an attorney who had asserted the attorney-client privilege in response to overly inquisitive questioning in chambers. The judge displayed a lack of impartiality to and petty harassment of attorneys who filed affidavits of prejudice against him and discouraged the exercise of peremptory disqualification rights by inappropriate means, including making intemperate remarks to counsel and attempting to inconvenience counsel by withholding judgments in unrelated cases. The judge engaged in intemperate, open-court criticism of a fellow judge and displayed an intolerant and persistently abusive and sarcastic demeanor toward litigants, attorneys and others in his courtroom. |
| Documents |