Judge Jim Gray risked his legal career on April 8, 1992 by holding a press conference to advocate for ending drug prohibition.
“I announced that making marijuana and various other drugs illegal was causing more problems than it was resolving,” Gray told the Southern California Record. “We were churning low-level drug offenders through the legal process for no good reason, taking a lot of mentally ill people who were self-medicating their demons and putting them in jail. None of that is socially desirable.”
The press conference is something the former Orange County sitting trial court judge considers a highlight of his career that he doesn’t regret.
“I could have been recalled as a judge, voted out of office or even had an ethical inquiry,” he said. “But the issue was so important to me. It's one of the best things I ever did.”
Judge Gray retired after 25 years and is now engaged in "private" judging, such as mediation and arbitration.
“I did receive a letter from the traditional performance commission, which is the ethical watchdog for judges,” he said. “They were informing me that they would not be investigating me for ethical improprieties. Some people disagreed, of course, but by and large, I got away with it.”
According to the American Bar Association magazine, judges who spoke out in favor of equal justice and the Civil Rights Movement, which began in 1954 and culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, faced public disapproval but were later canonized as judicial heroes. They include Judge Minor Wisdom, a Republican from Louisiana appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit, and Judge Elbert Tuttle, chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit. Both were appointed by President Eisenhower.
But the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) is advising judges not to attend protests or marches if participating could potentially undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary.
“It’s ridiculous to think that because a judge puts on a black robe that they don’t have their own internal thoughts and feelings but what’s interesting is that the Supreme Court is issuing this directive in light of what's going on now with all these rallies and demonstrations,” said Mike Arias, an attorney and immediate past-president of the Consumer Attorneys of California.
Released on July 20, the CJEO Formal Opinion 2020-014 is a 13-page directive, which includes the following statement:
“In determining whether participation would be appropriate, judges should examine the official title of the demonstration or rally, its stated mission, its sponsors, and its organizers. Judges should also take reasonable efforts to determine the messages that will be delivered by other participants and the risks that the demonstration or rally might depart from its original mission. Practically speaking, this may be difficult. Judges must remain vigilant and be prepared to leave if remaining at the demonstration or rally might result in a violation of their ethical duties or interfere with judicial obligations. Judges should also assume that their identity will likely be known and that their participation will be scrutinized, publicized, and depicted in reports of a demonstration or rally, including in press coverage or on social media.”
Arias says today's protests transcend agenda and that the guidelines are impractical.
“These rallies are a result of human nature and people now realizing that we've got to do something about what's been happening for a hundred years,” he said. “It’s nice to have the guidelines but I don't see any judge who wants to attend a Black Lives Matter rally in downtown Oakland trying to find a Black Lives Matter website to determine the agenda.”