Judge of the Day: Peter McBrien
Our latest Judge of the Day is a family law judge from Sacramento, California. Judge Peter McBrien must be fed up with overseeing divorce cases. One of his recent judgments has been vacated, and a retrial ordered, because of his premature termination of proceedings.
Judge McBrien hurried the case along, threatening mistrials when the husband's attorney asked for -- the nerve! -- lunch and bathroom breaks. He was so impatient he ended the trial in the middle of a question to an expert witness. When the judge has to use the bathroom, it's okay to break, eh?
From the Recorder:
[A] three-justice panel ordered new proceedings in the divorce of a Sacramento-area couple whose original 2006 trial ended abruptly when Judge Peter McBrien left the bench just as a lawyer was questioning - in mid-sentence - a witness.McBrien did not return - he said he had to handle an emergency protective order request - but did send word that he would decide the case on additional declarations and closing briefs limited to three pages.
"This method of conducting a trial cannot be condoned in a California courtroom," Justice M. Kathleen Butz wrote in the unanimous decision.
McBrien's walkout and subsequent ruling so infuriated the husband in the case, Ulf Johan Carlsson, that he has launched a recall drive against the judge. Carlsson and other McBrien critics have until late August to gather almost 30,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
From the sound of this Sacramento News & Review column, there may be quite a few people willing to sign the petition. The columnist calls the judge "Peter 'Chainsaw' McBrien," referring to a 1999 incident in which the judge allegedly "ordered a whack-job on a half-dozen oaks blocking his bluff-side view of the American River, knowing full well the trees were on public property, thus making the act of cutting them down felony vandalism. Unless, of course, you happen to be a judge with $20,000 on hand to bargain the crime down to a misdemeanor -- and keep your ass firmly planted on the bench."
Our general advice for staying on people's good sides: Let attorneys pee, and let trees stand.
We love that the opinion from the appeals court cites case law but vests the real authority in a Greek proverb: "Only judge when you have heard all."
Reversal for Judge Who Walked Out of Trial [The Recorder]
Sacramento judge denies 'disgracing the American Judiciary System' [Sacramento News & Review]
(13) Comments
first!
The perception that a particular court is unfair to out-of-town counsel (as in this case)--to the point that even the APPEARANCE of fairness is abandoned is so harmful to the public perception of our judicial system.
Note the reference in the opinion to the fact that Judge McBrien threatened out-of-town counsel with "contempt" if she did not comply with his sua sponte order to produce conflict of interest disclosure documents THAT THE JUDGE CONCEDED WERE NOTR RELEVANT TO THE PENDING PROCEEDING [McBrien demaned that Carlsson (out-of-town counsel's client), a state worker, produce conflict-of-interest documents that state employees are required to file. When Huddle questioned why the judge wanted papers unrelated to the divorce, McBrien said they might expose Carlsson to "potential penalties far beyond what we're talking about today."].
McBrien (apparently) made good that threat by sending a transcript of the proceedings to out-of-town counsel's employer--resulting in the client's termination from employment.
Guys at my high school used to pee their pants during trial all the time, it was no big deal.
FRAT STUD WANNABE
It's best to let trees pee and let attorneys stand.
Sacramento Family Court has log been perceived as a "juice court" in which out-of-town counsel has little chance of being fairly heard. This case just reinforces that perception.
The fact that in response to this controversy members of the Sacramento Family Bar Assn are talking about nominating McBrien as “judge of the year” as a show of support is not helping either.
NEWS FLASH: This is inappropriate judicial conduct.
What's next, a post on traffic court?
I nominate Divljan Shatterhand Steele to serve as the new writer for ATL.
People's Court, maybe. If the cases are not too complicated or long.....
Greek proverbs are part of the California law. It's in the state constitution. Right next to the gay marriage.
May 29@11:21: If you don't watch out I'm gonna loose Jesus on you.
McBrien's former court reporter (Robbie Joy) dropped a dime on McBrien--accusing the jurist of trying to order a transcript of the parts of the proceeding that (allegdly) McBrien later used to get the complaining litigant fired and calling her former judge "drunk with power".
See http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/PrintFriendly?oid=370137
Also see
http://www.familylawcourts.com/
McBrien's bias from the bench well known in the Sacramento Family Law community: One should walk into McBrein’s Department 124 on-guard and expect that a fair trial or hearing is not likely. Lady Justice holds those balance scales blindfolded to demonstrate that the legal system is supposed to be free of any bias in rending its difficult decisions; her blindfold is all the more important in Family court where emotions run high. It seems Lady Justice is vacant from McBrien's court.
While many individual instances of injustice rendered by McBrien can be cited (e.g. admitting non-evidence or not admitting valid evidence in support his presuppositions and agenda, demonstrative lack of attention while in court, McBrien's notorious clock-watching on the wall to the left of the bench), the current recall-McBrien effort in Sacramento will point up those specific instances.
In the big picture, public consensus of McBrien is that he undeniably has an agenda that bias-bends his half-thought decisions.
McBrien's motive for his agenda is not entirely clear. Is it that he just dislikes certain genders, races or economic classes, or is it that he has a general disdain for the society that dirties-up his court by bring their problems to his bench? I suspect the later is true.
Whatever his self-destructive issue, the effect is self evident: McBrien uses the power of that robe and gavel to lord his agenda on the public before him while the rules of court and evidence, tough decision-making for which he collects his public pay, and the scales of justice be damned.
Certainly no judge would accept the honor of the judicial appointment considering it their chance to "reign terror", as McBrien is now accused in the recall. But in the judge's defense, being a family court judge must be a very, very difficult assignment. The daily psycho-drama in that forum would jade anybody.
But when that jading-effect renders a judge to become the object of ridicule - from the Court of Appeal (McBrien admonished for openly and notoriously violated due process (http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/carl052708.htm), the Commission on Judicial Performance (guilty of a misdemeanor, placed on probation, McBrien received a "public admonishment" (http://cjp.ca.gov/PubAdm/McBrien%20PubAdm%204-25-02.pdf ), and the general public – then the time is overdue to for some fresh perspective in Department 124. Family law is difficult enough without having to deal with added element of the presiding judge of the Sacramento Family court being rouge.
Thus, if McBrien has just one good decision left in him then he should use it to step down from the bench. If not, then recall.
As for the Sacramento County Bar Association's Family Law Executive Committee current consideration for nomination for McBrien for "Judge of the Year", that would be laughable if not so disturbing. You attorneys are the guardians of the tribunal. Act like it.
Our family had a recent incident with Judge Mc Brien. A realtive who is 93 would never put a restraining order on no one in the family. There is a relative that is paid by the county to take care of her and took the relative out of her home and moved her into hers to isolate her from the rest of the family. APS did absolutely nothing about it either. Oh, I take that back they did advise the relative to seek conservator ship over the relative. In order to obtain a restraining order for FREE all you have to do is mention an act of violence whether its true or not. This relative did just that but the act of violence was not on the 93 yr old but on her but filed it on behalf of the 93 yr old ? The 93 yr old was unaware of this action and was not present in court because she has according to the relative progressive dementia. One victim of this restraining order game went before Judge Mc Brien. There were witnesses present even the terminally ill daughter of the 93 yr old. Judge Mc Brien denied the witnesses to speak and refused to listen to any evidence brought in. He granted the restraining order for one year. Perhaps he had to go to the bathroom ? Yes, there will certainly be family members who will sign the petition with a smile on their face.