CA Commission on Judicial Performance charges former Justice Murray Jr of 3rd Apellate District with willful misconduct, conduct prejudicial to administration of justice, dereliction of duty, bringing judicial office into disrepute and persistent failure to perform duties

 

Yesterday, the California Commission on Judicial Performance issued a press release and notice stating the CJP has instituted formal proceedings concerning former Justice William J. Murray, Jr. of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. Former Justice Murray is represented by Attorney Andrew J. Waxler of Los Angeles. 

I have added the press release. The notice of formal is 20 pages with exhibits. It can be viewed via the CJP website. I am have added the summary of charges relevant portions and the three counts. You have to actually read the details to see the seriousness and lives affected.

CJP Press Release:

The Commission on Judicial Performance has instituted formal proceedings to inquire into matters concerning former Justice William J. Murray, Jr. of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. 

The commencement of formal proceedings is not a determination of judicial misconduct. A copy of the Notice of Formal Proceedings is posted on the commission’s website at https://cjp.ca.gov (under “Announcements”).

Former Justice Murray’s Answer to the Notice is due June 30, 2025. Upon filing, the former justice’s answer will be made available for public inspection. In accordance with the rules that govern commission proceedings, a hearing will be conducted by special masters appointed by the Supreme Court. 

At the hearing, the parties will have an opportunity to introduce evidence and examine and cross-examine witnesses. Commission Trial Counsel, Mark A. Lizarraga, and Assistant Trial Counsel, Melissa G. Murphy, will serve as Examiners for the commission. 

Former Justice Murray is represented by Attorney Andrew J. Waxler of Los Angeles. 

Following completion of the hearing, the special masters will provide the commission with a report containing findings with respect to the charges. The parties will have an opportunity to present their views on the report to the commission through briefing and argument. If the commission determines that the charges are proven by clear and convincing evidence, it is empowered to censure, publicly admonish, or privately discipline the former justice. Charges that the commission determines are not proven will be dismissed. A determination by the commission to censure or admonish a former justice is subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court upon petition by the former justice.  

The commission is composed of six public members, three judges, and two lawyers. The chairperson is Hon. Lisa B. Lench. Commission members Rickey Ivie, Esq. and Hon. Kimberly Merrifield are recused in this matter. 

Notice:

"To William J. Murray, Jr., a former justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, from December 10, 2010, to January 27, 2022: Preliminary investigation pursuant to Rules of the Commission on Judicial Performance, rules 109 and 111, having been made, the Commission on Judicial Performance has concluded that formal proceedings should be instituted to inquire into the charges specified against you herein. By the following allegations, you 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, to wit. " --Page 1

Count 1

"You engaged in a neglect of duty and a pattern of chronic delay in deciding a significant number of appellate cases from April 2012 to January 2022. "

Count 2

"You failed to accord calendar preference to six juvenile cases as follows. "

Count 3

"Although you were aware of your backlog for many years, and repeatedly discussed the issue of delay with your colleagues on the court, you did not diligently discharge your administrative responsibilities to supervise your research attorneys to ensure the prompt disposition of your assigned cases.  Despite being dissatisfied with the work of certain attorneys, you let personnel problems persist for years. "