San Diego Howard Shore judge, now withdrawn, disciplined again

For the second time in less than 18 months, the California’s judicial performance committee publicly disciplined the former judge of the Superior Court of San Diego, Howard Shore, this time to make “comments on the ground reflecting the appearance of a racial bias” and deceptive declarations on its previous discipline.

The Commission published the public award last week, just over two months after the retreat of Shore. In December 2023, the Commission issued Shore a rare “severe” public censorship – a step below withdrawing it from the bench – after having noticed that he had jumped 155 days of work without authorization and was initially dishonest when he was confronted with his supervisors on non -excused absences, which included every Friday for a period of 18 months in 2021 and 2022.

A warning is the lowest level of public discipline that the Commission can impose, after withdrawal, censorship and reprobation.

Unlike public censorship, which is the result of an agreement stipulated between the shore, its lawyers and the commission, the retirement judge wrote in a long declaration provided to the Union-Tribune that it “(rejects) this public warning as unjustified”.

Admiration is the last imperfection on Shore’s record, ending the last tumultuous year of what had been a long and distinguished career as a lawyer and judge. At the beginning of last year, about a month after Shore was censored, the main leaders of the Public Defender Office said in a statement that Shore had “lost judicial legitimacy”. Months later, an Orange county judge disqualified the shore by hearing several cases under the California racial justice law, concluding that there were reasonable questions about the question of whether he could remain impartial taking into account his previous “language and comments” in the courtroom. The leaders of the San Diego Superior Court then suppressed the request department on the trial that Shore directed and transferred it to the civil division after spending more than 25 years in the criminal division.

“While presiding over criminal hearings before the trial, judge Shore made unworthy, discourty and offensive comments which could reasonably be perceived as prejudices, prejudices or harassment … on the basis of race, national origin or ethnicity,” wrote the commission in its approval.

Although the warning deals with allegations of reprehensible earth acts which are distinct from its actions linked to its censorship, the discipline is linked in several ways. For example, the Commission noted that private comments and a public judicial file by Shore sought to minimize the reasons for its previous discipline, and that Shore therefore lacked violation of one of the canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

In addition, the Commission said that it “considered the previous discipline of judge Shore as a considerably aggravating factor” to decide to issue the new warning.

A central question in the warning is a meeting that Shore called with Katherine Braner and Megan Marcotte of the office of the Public Defender of the county on December 4, 2023, when Shore knew that he was about to be censored, but the discipline had not yet been made public.

Braner, who at the time of the meeting was the interim leader of the public defender office, and Marcotte, chief of the component of the alternative public defender of the office, later wrote in a statement under oath that Shore had made racist and insensitive comments at the meeting. They claimed that Shore had “lost legal legitimacy and irreparably damaged his confidence in his judicial integrity” and took the exceptional measure to request that the shore will no longer be assigned to the presidency of the cases of the defendants represented by the public defenders.

Braner and Marcotte wrote that at the 45 -minute meeting with the shore, he minimized censorship, made disturbing comments on the Mexicans and the Palestinians living in Gaza and expressed a bias against the tenants.

The Commission noted that Shore’s omissions at the meeting and its “minimization of facts” underlying censorship constituted a lack of franchise.

Shore took shade with the declaration made by Braner and Marcotte.

“Many of the conclusions drawn in the declaration, as well as those contained in the warning, are simply wrong and, unfortunately, reflect an alarming degree in bad faith on the part of its authors,” wrote Shore in his declaration. “Due to the objective of the meeting – to advise imminent censorship, rather than reviewing all its content – I have not discussed censorship in detail … Any conclusion that I intentionally concealed from parts of censorship to mislead is incorrect.”

The declaration of Braner and Marcotte was filed before the court by an assistant public defender in the context of a broader effort to disqualify the shore to preside over many cases, but especially on requests based on the law on racial justice, a state law of 2020 which seeks to guarantee that the race does not play a factor in the administration of justice. As head of the Department of requests in trial, Shore was responsible for reigning on the requests of the Racial Justice Act in all cases heard in the central division of downtown the Superior Court.

In a decision last April, considered the first of its kind, the judge president of the County of Orange, Cheri Pham, disqualified the shore by hearing several cases under the law on racial justice, the decision coming less than two months after a court of appeal canceled the shore in a case of the law on racial justice.

“According to his comments, a person aware of the facts might reasonably believe that Judge Shore thinks that certain racial or ethnic groups commit more crimes than others,” wrote Pham in part, quoting Note that Shore had done during previous hearings.

The Commission cited many of these same comments in its warning. In a hearing cited by the Commission, the shore “did not take into account the opinion of an expert concerning racism and offered its own opinion concerning” reverse racism “, wrote the commission.

“Whatever his intention, the comments of judge Shore were largely out of words for all the questions seized and constituted free interjections,” wrote the commission. “In particular, the use by judge Shore of the word n ​​while arguing with an expert was not necessary.”

The Commission also wrote that the shore has poorly disparaged the state’s legislature while criticizing the racial justice law. The Commission noted that its comments concerning the race and ethnicity and its comments criticizing the legislators of the State have violated several cannons of judicial ethics, including its duties to impartialize, to be faithful to the law independently of the partisan interests and the execution of its legal duties without prejudice or prejudice.

“I deny that my comments violated the cannons of judicial ethics,” said Shore in his declaration. “My comments mentioned in various RJA hearings, in isolation, transmit the false impression that I have fueled a bias against the law on racial justice.

Shore also denied that his comments on the Legislative Assembly were inappropriate. “Racial Justice Act contains numerous provisions which have not yet been interpreted by our appeal courts, and there has so far been a shortage of orientation for the judges of first instance,” he wrote. “I made my comments to participate in a significant exchange with lawyers in order to solve the important problems and the important objectives of the law on racial justice, and not to denigrate the legislative assembly.”

Nine members of the commission, made up of six public members, three judges and two lawyers, voted in favor of the reprimand. One member was challenged and another member did not participate for unknown reasons.

Originally published: April 7, 2025 at 6:49 p.m.