Prosecutors Say Judge’s Misconduct Warrants Ban

In their final court brief before a disciplinary hearing, state prosecutors urge the Commission on Judicial Performance to ban Judge Robert C. Bradley from hearing any future cases and describe his drunken conduct last year as “unprecedented.”

Bradley, 58 and now retired, was convicted twice of drunk driving and was arrested four additional times for alcohol-related probation violations during an eight-month period between December 1997 and August 1998.

The violations and his subsequent suspension from the Ventura County Superior Court effectively ended Bradley’s 15-year judicial career. He decided not to seek reelection last fall.

But in a series of briefs filed with the San Francisco-based commission this month, Bradley has asserted his ongoing sobriety and pleaded with commissioners to allow him to return to work as a temporary judge, where he could earn $407 a day.

Attorneys with the commission’s prosecuting arm have rejected the judge’s argument that censure is the appropriate punishment, however. In a final brief filed Monday, they argue that Bradley’s “misconduct is so unprecedented” that it warrants he be permanently prohibited from working as a jurist.

“No other judge has suffered so many criminal convictions, violated court orders, disobeyed their presiding judge, been barred from the courthouse as a security risk, come to work intoxicated, threatened both a prosecutor and an estranged spouse and been unable to perform his judicial duties because he was in jail,” they wrote.

Bradley’s troubles started after back-to-back drunk driving arrests in late 1997 and early 1998, for which he was later convicted. He voluntarily entered an alcohol-treatment program and served 30 days in jail. He also was placed on probation and ordered not to consume alcoholic beverages.

But in subsequent months, Bradley violated his probation--first by getting drunk and breaking into the home of his estranged wife in Ojai, and later by riding a bicycle while intoxicated, authorities say.

At the same time, he was suspended from work after showing up drunk and barred from the courthouse after threatening a prosecutor who was romantically involved with his wife.

In February, a three-judge panel concluded that Bradley’s conduct violated the ethics of his profession and brought disrepute to the judiciary.

The panel based its decision on testimony from witnesses who recounted Bradley’s arrests and the day he showed up drunk at the Ventura courthouse.

But Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury and two Superior Court judges also testified that Bradley’s drinking problem never surfaced on the job before last year.

They described Bradley as a capable and respected judge whose career derailed amid a painful divorce and struggle with alcoholism.

In court papers filed last week, Bradley’s lawyer argued that while the judge’s misconduct was embarrassing to the bench, it was not so egregious as to warrant being barred from future service.

Attorney Thomas C. Brayton cited a dozen other cases involving California judges who have been disciplined for misconduct in the past 26 years, and argued that Bradley’s actions by comparison warrant nothing more than public censure.

He stressed the point again in his own final brief on Bradley’s behalf, which was also filed Monday.

“The question to be determined by the Commission is whether an exemplary 15-year judicial career, followed by truly regrettable alcohol-related difficulties over a span of eight months, should result in Judge Bradley forever being precluded from sitting by assignment,” Brayton wrote.

Stating that the judge “in no way seeks to minimize his alcohol-related conduct,” Brayton concluded his brief by asking the Commission to reprimand Bradley and not preclude him from serving as a temporary judge.

The next step in the process will be a disciplinary hearing before the commission. Although a date hasn’t been set, the hearing is expected to be held in May or June. A final ruling is expected a week to a month later.