A now-retired San Diego County Superior Court judge has been admonished for the second time in less than two years by the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance for making statements that were allegedly racially biased and misleading.
The judge, however, said a complaint from public defenders that led to the admonishment was infected by "animosity" against him for using language they found "insensitive" for questioning some of the bases assumed by others concerning "racial justice," particularly when discussing the belief that only white people could be guilty of racism.
The commission published its order admonishing Judge Howard Shore on April 3. Shore had previously been the subject of a severe public censure on Dec. 13, 2023, after the judge acknowledged he had been improperly absent from his judicial position for at least 155 days in 2021 and 2022, a violation of judicial canons.
The most recent admonishment followed a December 2023 meeting Shore had with chiefs in the county’s Public Defender’s Office. The public defenders said in a declaration that Shore had attempted to garner sympathy just prior to the announcement of his censure and to minimize his past behavior.
The judge told the public defenders he needed to assist his son’s family in Los Angeles on weekends because a grandchild had serious medical conditions, according to the commission, The admonishment order also alleged Shore had made racially insensitive statements that demonstrated the appearance of racial bias during pre-trial criminal hearings in a case involving the state’s Racial Justice Act.
“The commission found that Judge Shore’s express representations, omissions and minimization of the facts underlying the commission’s Dec. 13, 2023, decision and order … constituted a lack of candor,” the panel said in its admonition.
But in a statement emailed to the Southern California Record, Shore challenged the commission’s interpretation of the meeting with public defenders. The meeting with the chiefs was simply a courtesy to assure the Public Defender’s Office that the censure order would not affect his ability to preside over criminal cases in the future.
“I have not attempted to provide any information that conflicts with that (censure) agreement or to garner sympathy or minimize the conduct resulting in the censure,” Shore said. “... I did not state or imply that the commission members had not fairly considered my responses and mitigating evidence in preparing the final stipulation to the censure – they (the chief public defenders) did.”
April’s admonishment order mentioned that an Orange County judge, Cheri Pham, disqualified Shore from presiding over Racial Justice Act hearings in certain cases. Pham found that the judge’s “insensitive language” could give the impression that Shore was not able to be impartial, according to the commission.
But Shore said he never “gratuitously used the N-word,” as the commission alleged. He simply used the word in a discussion to examine why a witness said only white people could be guilty of racism – a philosophy the judge said runs counter to the provisions of the Racial Justice Act.
Nor did he disparage the state legislature for passing the measure, according to Shore’s statement. Rather, the judge said he was simply engaging in an exchange with attorneys about the goals of the Racial Justice Act.
The allegations in the public defenders’ statement reflect “a level of animosity that infects the entire declaration” and undermines the declaration’s credibility, according to Shore.
“I served as a judge for 35 years,” he said in his statement, which noted that a Los Angeles newspaper profile labeled him a model judge in 2003. “During that time, I maintained a reputation for integrity and devotion to the pursuit of justice of which I am proud.”.