It is an underlying assumption that judges should embody the principles of impartiality and level-headedness. However, this was apparently considered optional by Tony R. Mallery, a recently removed judge. As reported by the Above the Law, California’s Commission on Judicial Performance made the decision after a consistent pattern of behavior that disregarded judicial protocol.
According to the ABA Journal, Judge Mallery committed 23 acts of willful misconduct and 36 acts of prejudicial misconduct. The commission described this misconduct as a wide-ranging series of instances that displayed either a “troubling inability to conform his behavior to appropriate judicial standards” or a fundamental lack of comprehension of the responsibilities of being a judge – or both.
Among the highlighted misconduct examples, the judge “usurped the role of prosecutors” with an attempt to eliminate traditional plea bargaining, underscoring a concerning misunderstanding of courtroom roles. He charted plans to offer his deals to defendants after hearings, overstepping his judicial authority. In addition, Mallery’s conversations with attorneys about plea deals suggested decisions may be influenced by improper factors, including public perception and political ramifications.
Further examples of Mallery’s unprofessional behavior extended outside the courtroom. The court’s administrative manager reported that Mallery sought the identity of those providing information on his behavior to ethics investigators and suggested an unwarranted review of employee emails to determine the informant. The judge also reportedly stated he would “go postal” if he were to be removed from office by the California Commission on Judicial Performance.
These highlighted instances serve only as a snapshot of the many abuses committed by Mallery. This series of events culminated in the removal of Mallery from the bench, a relief undoubtedly felt by his courthouse associates. As this case demonstrates, the duty of a judge is not to supersede the roles of other legal professionals, but to provide an impartial and level-headed adjudication process.