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 | Richard J. |
| Last Name | Ryan |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | 68 |
| Court Level | Municipal Court |
| County/Appellate District | Placer |
| Discipline/Determination | Removal from office |
| Decision By | Supreme Court |
| Date of Decision | 05/31/1988 |
| Method of Resolution | Decision |
| Types of Misconduct | Abuse of contempt/sanctions Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Comment on a pending case Ex parte communications Failure to ensure rights Non-performance of judicial functions/attendance/sleeping On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties Sexual harassment/inappropriate workplace gender comments |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | Judge Ryan exhibited a pattern of personal embroilment in the cases assigned to him and showed a loss of temperance and objectivity on several occasions, resulting in prejudice to the parties appearing before him. The judge imposed an unduly harsh sentence to punish a defendant for having a jury trial. He contacted the district attorney ex parte and urged him to pursue a case pending before the judge as a felony, not a misdemeanor. Judge Ryan conducted his own investigation during a criminal trial. He unlawfully ordered a defendant into a work-release program and hired private counsel to defend the court’s order. He sentenced another defendant in the absence of his counsel and extracted a confession from a defendant on a probation violation charge after the defendant had requested counsel. The judge failed to provide court reporters when required to do so by law. He made improper comments to the press regarding pending matters. He told offensive jokes to female attorneys in chambers. The judge also abused his contempt power. Additionally, he routinely left court early on Fridays. |
| Documents |