Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Friday, December 14, 2018

 

Page 1

 

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carol Elswick Draws Public Admonishment From CJP

Decision Says She Has Abused Authority, Improperly Caused Jailings Former Orange Superior Court Judge Stafford Also Draws Scolding

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

The Commission on Judicial Performance yesterday publicly admonished Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carol Williams Elswick for improper and discourteous conduct in several cases between 2013 and 2016.

It also publicly admonished former Orange Superior Court Judge Timothy J. Stafford, pursuant to a stipulation.

The commission said in its written decision and order, with respect to Elswick:

“Judge Elswick has engaged in numerous incidents of misconduct over a three-year period. In the commission’s view, the judge’s misconduct involving abuse of authority and disregard of the defendants’ fundamental rights, resulting in deprivation of liberty, is particularly serious.”

Deprivations of Liberty

In three separate misdemeanor probation cases, the commission found that Elswick had improperly remanded the defendants to custody.

In one such case, defendant Josh C.J. Hsu appeared before the judge to request an extension to pay his fine in lieu of community service, which he did not expect to be able to complete; she denied that request and remanded him to custody on a $30,000 bond, but told him not to bail out before the next hearing, five days later, at which point she would sentence him to time served; Hsu’s father bailed him out, and he paid the fine before that hearing.

The commission quoted Elswick as telling Hsu (with emphasis added by it):

The tail does not wag the dog, okay. You are the criminal defendant, and when Commissioner [William V.] McTaggart made his order, which you agreed to and accepted two years ago, you had an option to pay it or do 12 days of community labor and you just—what would be the appropriate word would be on the record—you messed around and didn’t get it done because it’s okay to buy your way out, or family buys your way out and that’s not the way this court work [sic]. [¶] So at this time you are remanded, and it’s late in the day, but you are remanded.”

Commission’s Response

The commission noted that in Hsu’s case and two others “Judge Elswick intentionally delayed setting a hearing until after her predetermined jail sentence had been served, which conveyed the appearance that she was circumventing the sheriff’s department’s early release program.”

It declared:

“The commission found that Judge Elswick abused her authority and disregarded the defendants’ fundamental rights to due process by de facto revoking probation and imposing a sentence without affording the right to a revocation hearing in all three matters.…The problem here was not the length of time between the remand and a hearing, but that the judge continued the matters for dates to set the hearing in order that the defendants serve a predetermined sanction, without conducting a revocation hearing or obtaining a waiver of the right to a hearing. While a judge may remand a probationer pending probation violation hearings, the remand cannot be for the improper purpose of requiring a probationer to serve a predetermined sentence.”

Improper §170.6 Response

The decision and order also admonishes Elswick for an improper response to a peremptory challenge brought by Los Angeles Deputy Public Defender Diane Link under Code of Civil Procedure §170.6. The day after Link’s challenge, in a different matter, the judge called her and the prosecutor into chambers for a reported discussion, during which Elswick intimated Link had solicited the client in the second case.

 At a later meeting in  chambers with Jeffrey Graves, the then-deputy public defender in charge of the Alhambra branch, Elswick repeatedly alluded to “battle” between her and the Public Defender’s Office, and brought up the §170.6 challenge.

The commission, citing the Code of Judicial Ethics, said:

“The commission found that Judge Elswick’s repeated remarks to Ms. Link regarding her battles with the public defender’s office, the day after the public defender had filed a peremptory challenge in Jingles, conveyed an appearance of bias and embroilment in violation of canons 2, 2A, and 3B(5). The commission found that Judge Elswick improperly created the appearance of impropriety, in violation of canon 2, by discussing the…peremptory challenge with Mr. Graves, who was the public defender misdemeanor attorney supervisor.”

(The quoted portions of Elswick’s discussions with Link and Graves reflect that she was disclaiming any desire to engage in a “battle” with Public Defender’s Office.)

Trojan Pride

Elswick also drew criticism for comments reflecting allegiance to her undergraduate alma mater, USC. In 2016, she told a deputy public defender,  who was contending that a defendant had lacked the ability to pay a fine:

“He had the ability to pay SC [University of Southern California]. I went to SC. I’m a fellow [Trojan]. If I could help you, I’d help you; Bruin, I wouldn’t help you. He’s a Bruin. That’s why I said it. I said a Bruin I wouldn’t help you.”

She later added:

“Here’s my position. I’ve already said it. I can’t say it more clearly. He had money for his alcohol program. He had money to pay SC. You see what I’m saying.”

In 2015, a graduate student who had left the United States in response to a family emergency was requesting an extension of time to finish her five days community service. Elswick was quoted as saying:

“I, too, was in graduate school and I worked part time, which is more than jive days over four months, okay?

She was also taken to task for telling a defendant who had driven with a suspended license, and who mentioned that he suffers from Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder:

“If you have that, then I don’t know how you can drive, but that’s a different story.”

The commission said Elswick’s comment was “sarcastic and discourteous” and “at a minimum, constituted improper action.”

No Prior Discipline

Elswick, who earned her law degree at Loyola, has no other record of previous discipline in her 27 years as a bench officer. She was a Santa Anita Municipal Court commissioner from 1991-97 and a Los Angeles Municipal Court from 1997-2000, and gained her present post in 2000 upon trial court unification.

The commission is made up of two lawyers three judges, and six public members. Seven commissioners voted for public admonishment, two voted for private admonishment, and two did not participate in the decision.

In a separate decision and opinion yesterday, Stafford, who retired in September, the commission publicly admonished him for “undignified remarks” indicating gender bias during a restraining order hearing.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Div. Three reversed Stafford’s denial of the requested restraining order in that case, in part based on judicial misconduct, in an unpublished opinion Aug 27.

 

Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company