PRESS

Pat Connolly

Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 116

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Pat Connolly is, in some ways, not a model judge. On occasion, he’s misbehaved, incurring three admonishments by the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”), two of them public scoldings—though some of the findings are, in our view, infirm.

Connolly, in an interview with this newspaper when he ran for his judgeship in 2008, termed himself “pugnacious.” He recently demonstrated that he is, indeed, combative, interceding in a proceeding before a colleague, seeking his recusal.

But, upon examination, nothing he’s done has been so egregious as to warrant his being fired by voters.

There are judges who ought to be ousted. The lazy ones. Those lacking honesty. The dolts. Connolly fits none of those categories.

And there are strong reasons for keeping him in office. He’s principled and is highly knowledgeable in the area of criminal law.

As one judicial officer puts it: “He is not a bad judge and he has been doing it for 18 years, without any significant reversals on appeal. That is enough for me to earn my support. He may have temperament issues, including being heavy handed at times. Hopefully he will see this as a challenge to improve himself in these areas.”

Another jurist remarks:

“Judge Pat Connolly is challenged by [Deputy District Attorney] Paul Thompson who believes Connolly’s record of CJP discipline warrants removal from the bench. Apparently Thompson’s dim view of Connolly is not widely shared at the DA’s Office, nor is it appreciated by others who regard Connolly as hard-working, always prepared, and unafraid of making difficult decisions.”

A deputy district attorney advises:

“I just read in the MetNews that Paul Thompson is challenging sitting Superior Court Pat Connolly. I read the comments Mr. Thompson made, calling Judge Connolly a ‘bully.’ I want you to know, nothing could be further from the truth.”

The prosecutor makes note of a Jan. 26 sentencing hearing presided over by Connolly, saying:

“Mr. Thompson was the DA in the case and has first hand knowledge of how professional Judge Connolly conducted the hearing. Judge Connolly could not have been more respectful or complimentary of all parties involved, including the Defendant.”

Just why is it that Connolly was rebuked by the CJP?

•His private admonishment came in 2010. He had been quoted in a Feb. 9, 2010 profile in the Daily Journal as using an expletive in referring to those in the Los Angeles County Bar Association who in 2008 had rated him “not qualified” for election to the Superior Court and employed swearwords in other contexts. The CJP said in its 2010 Annual Report:

“A judge repeatedly used profanity while being interviewed by a reporter and the profanity appeared in the newspaper article. The judge used profanity with counsel in chambers.”

Connolly, whose term began Jan. 5, 2009, had been a judge for only about a year when the interview took place. There’s no indication of continuing use of coarse language by the judge.

•He received a public admonishment on March 23, 2016. The judge had presided over a jury trial in July 2010; the defense lawyer, Freddie Fletcher, during a sidebar conference, accused the prosecutor of having signaled a police officer during testimony how to answer a question by shaking her head; Connolly, who saw no such coaching, was concerned by the allegation. As he saw it, either the prosecutor committed misconduct, possibly amounting to a contempt, or Fletcher falsely accused her, which also could be construed as a contempt.

After the trial ended, he ordered a transcript and consulted with another judge in whose courtroom Fletcher had assailed the prosecutor’s alleged conduct. After several continuances, Connolly conducted a hearing at which he heard testimony from persons who were present when the prosecutor purportedly shook her head. Fletcher was excluded from the courtroom during the testimony.

Connolly concluded that prosecutorial misconduct had not occurred but he did not bring a contempt proceeding against Fletcher.

We can see no justification for barring Fletcher from the courtroom. But in the end, no consequences befell the lawyer.

The CJP found that Connolly “engaged in a course of conduct that reflected embroilment with a criminal defense attorney and abused his authority by setting multiple post-trial hearings, including an ex parte evidentiary hearing, relating to statements the attorney made during trial without citing the attorney for contempt or issuing an order to show cause…re contempt.”

It’s ironic. Appellate cases counsel that the contempt power should be utilized sparingly, only in extreme situations. Connolly got in trouble based on exercising restraint, not launching contempt proceedings but, rather, probing whether such an action would be warranted. He was perhaps procedurally clumsy, in his first year in office, but his purpose was simply to seek the truth.

The CJP declared that Connolly “violated his duty to…act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity…of the judiciary.” He could not have jeopardized confidence in the integrity of the judiciary unless he had personally displayed a want of integrity. He didn’t.

What he wanted to find out was whether proceedings in his courtroom had been marred by a lack of integrity either on the part of the prosecutor, by signaling a witness how to answer, or by the defense lawyer in possibly fabricating misconduct. Perhaps the commission was correct in finding that Connolly erred in “conducting an independent investigation into the attorneys’ conduct, which was beyond the scope of his authority.” But its assault on his integrity was unfounded; he was unconscionably maligned.

Should the admonishment have been a public one? The CJP explained: “[T]he commission considered as an aggravating factor Judge Connolly’s prior discipline.” But that prior discipline was based on the discrete matter of his having uttered cuss words. The new matter did not reflect any continuing pattern of misconduct. There was no need for anything other than the providing of guidance to the then-neophyte jurist.

•Then there’s the matter of Connolly’s April 2, 2021 public admonishment. The CJP said in its decision and order that the judge “displayed improper demeanor toward two criminal defense attorneys during an arraignment and, in a different criminal case, made an inappropriate remark about the jury’s verdict to a defendant who had been acquitted.”

The two criminal defense lawyers each appeared, with Connolly’s permission, by telephone. This took place on March 20, 2020, the day after Gov. Gavin Newsom issued his stay-at-home order in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. It would not be until June 22 that the court launched its LACourtConnect system broadening use of video remote appearances.

One of the lawyers asked that his client be released on his own recognizance based on health concerns. Those concerns were set forth in a letter. But the lawyer had not provided a copy of the letter to the court.

Connolly responded: “How am I going to see that letter if you are not in my courtroom? I’m not going to, am I?”

The lawyer protested that the representation was coming from an “officer of the court.” Any judge who accepted at face value an unsubstantiated factual assertion simply because it was uttered by an attorney would be a fool.

Connolly proceeded to set bail for both defendants. The other attorney then also requested an “O.R.” release for her client. The judge told her to bring the relevant paperwork to court at the time of the preliminary hearing; she continued to argue, without leave to do so; he interrupted her, saying:

“Okay. I’m going to stop you there. Because we’re done.

“All right. I am not releasing either of these people, with these charges. There are multiple charges. If you wished to present this evidence, you should have been here or had someone represent you.”

The commission declared:

“There is no apparent justification for the judge’s display of impatience and irritation, which he admitted and which is clearly reflected in the transcript of the proceeding.”

In an earlier matter, on Aug. 20, 2018, after a jury found one of the defendants not guilty, and after jurors left, Connolly remarked to the man:

“[L]et me tell you, you’ve been given a gift from God because there’s no question in my mind that you’re guilty of this crime.”

He continued:

“[Y]ou’ve been given a gift. What you do with it is your choice. Fair enough?”

The CJP opined that Connolly committed misconduct by “disparaging the jury’s determination,” finding that “Judge Connolly’s remark was likely to undermine public confidence in the independence of the jury and its important role in the justice system.”

Given the lack of news coverage of an arraignment unworthy of notice, there was hardly any prospect that the public would ever have gained knowledge of the remark had the commission not publicized it.

Connolly was not assailing the defendant; he was attempting to provide counseling.

The CJP indicated that it “considered Judge Connolly’s prior discipline to be a significant aggravating factor.”

It noted that Connolly had not demonstrated “contrition” in connection with his conduct at the arraignment and did not acknowledge that his remark to the acquitted defendant was improper, saying that it “considered Judge Connolly’s failure to fully appreciate his misconduct as an additional aggravating factor.”

The judge had conceded that that he “should not have demonstrated irritation or impatience with defense counsel” and that he “spoke too sharply”—but that was apparently not a sufficient expression of remorse to satisfy the CJP. With respect to his remarks to the acquitted defendant, it would seem that the CJP expected Connolly to lie that he agreed with the negative assessment of his mini-lecture when he actually believed it to have been justified.

A public admonishment, in our view, was unwarranted; the most that was called for was an advisory letter in connection with Connolly’s impatience at the arraignment.

The judge did draw negative attention to himself in 2023 when he attempted, unsuccessfully, to intervene in a Los Angeles Superior Court resentencing proceeding, seeking the disqualification of the judge handling the petition, Daniel Lowenthal, asserting bias on his part. Connolly, as determined by an Orange Superior Court judge, had no standing.

While his stunt was ill-considered, it is not beyond comprehension why he desired to provide input given that the petitioner, who had been convicted in 2007 of first-degree murder, was alleging prosecutorial misconduct in the form of withholding exculpatory evidence and Connolly had been the prosecutor. There was an assault on his integrity.

In the end, Lowenthal denied the petition and went out of his way to exonerate Connolly.

Connolly remains rough around the edges. He’s a bit of a maverick. But he’s honorable. He’s competent. There are no indications that either the prosecution or the defense cannot expect a fair trial in his courtroom.

Given our conclusion that voters have insufficient cause to turn Connolly out of office, we do not consider the competing qualifications of his challenger.

We did not endorse Connolly in 2008. We do now.