Page 1
Retired C.A. Justice Faces Disciplinary Charges
William J. Murray Jr. Was Among Third District Justices Who Delayed in Deciding Cases, Sometimes for Years
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
WILLIAM J. MURRAY retired justice |
William J. Murray Jr., who resigned on Jan. 27, 2022, as a justice of the Third District Court of Appeal after that judicial body came under scrutiny based on lengthy delays in deciding cases, is under investigation by the state’s disciplinary agency, it was announced yesterday.
In a notice of formal proceedings, dated June 4 and filed June 10, the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) said:
“[Y]ou are charged with engaging in willful misconduct in office, persistent failure or inability to perform your duties, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, improper action, and dereliction of duty within the meaning of article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution, providing for removal, censure, or public or private admonishment of a judge or former judge….”
Presiding Justice Disciplined
Foot-dragging by members of the Sacramento-based Third District led to the May 27, 2022 public admonishment of then-Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye, pursuant to a stipulation, accompanied by his resignation and a lifetime bar on holding judicial office.
Two justices other than Murray and Raye were implicated in the scandal. They were Justice Coleman Blease, who retired on June 7, 2022 and died on Nov. 28 of that year, and Justice Harry E. Hull who remains a member of the court.
Hull is believed to be the unnamed jurist who received merely an advisory letter, the lowest form of CJP discipline. The 2024 annual report by the commission says:
“An appellate justice delayed decision in numerous matters by issuing opinions more than three years after each case was fully briefed and assigned to the justice. The delay in some of those appeals exceeded four years.”
Charges Against Murray
The June 4 notice, signed by CJP Chair Lisa B. Lench, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, advises Murray:
“You failed to promptly decide (or dismiss) 355 cases within at least one year after a case was either assigned to you or was fully briefed, whichever date is later (as set forth in Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein as though set forth hi full).
“Two of your assigned cases, including one juvenile matter, had aged between eight and nine years before being decided. Two of your cases, including one juvenile matter, were delayed between seven and eight years: five cases were delayed between six and seven years: 15 cases were delayed between five and six years: 47 cases were delayed between four and five years: 59 cases, including one juvenile matter, were delayed between three and four years: 88 cases were delayed between two and three years: and 137 cases, including three juvenile matters, were delayed between one and two years. You did not prioritize your efforts so that older cases could be resolved before work began on newer ones.
“Your backlog included cases assigned to you as early as 2011. During the relevant time period, you were aware of your growing backlog of cases. You received monthly reports identifying your assigned cases and the date of each assignment. You also knew that the issue of backlog was a court-wide concern during the relevant time period.”
Failure to Prioritize
Lench went on to say:
“Despite knowing the extent of your backlog, you neglected your duty by failing to curtail your extensive participation hi non-core judicial activities, including work on judicial branch and other committees, and in judicial and legal education programs, court outreach activities, and community work between 2011 and 2021. You did not minimize the impact of delay by prioritizing the delayed matters and taking into account the effect of delay on the parties in some cases.
“Your neglect of duty and pattern of persistent decisional delay…prejudiced civil litigants and criminal defendants. It also, at minimum, created the appearance that appropriate appellate review was impeded or denied.”
Murray was given until June 30—20 days from the filing of the charges—to provide a written answer.
Procrastination on the part of the Third District justice was brought to light in 2021 by Sonoma County attorney Jon B. Eisenberg who publicly revealed the complaint he had filed with the CJP against Raye, Murray, Blease and Hull. He recited in a 2023 article in the Journal of the Litigation Section of the California Lawyers Association:
“Cumulatively, during 2018-2021, those four justices allowed hundreds of appeals to languish undecided for periods between two and eight years after the completion of briefing, with many instances where criminal sentences were reversed or reduced after they had been fully served.”
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company