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 | Frank |
| Last Name | Roesch |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | N/A |
| Court Level | Superior |
| County/Appellate District | Alameda |
| Discipline/Determination | Public Admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 10/15/2020 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Demeanor/decorum |
| Petition For Review | N/A |
| Summary | The commission issued a public admonishment for misconduct in two separate cases. In those two cases, Judge Roesch displayed a lack of neutrality and a lack of courtesy to witnesses, parties, and attorneys. In a civil jury trial, Judge Roesch questioned a witness in a hostile manner, made sarcastic remarks, and mishandled (in multiple ways) the witness’s assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. In a quiet title action, Judge Roesch questioned the party and counsel in an injudicious manner. The commission issued discipline for the misguided manner in which Judge Roesch attempted to address his incorrect assumptions about how to handle issues in each case and for the discourteous way in which he comported himself toward those appearing in court before him. |
| Documents | [ DECISION] |