Ferguson's murder conviction exposes gaps in California's judicial oversight

The conviction of Orange County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey M. Ferguson for murdering his wife exposed vulnerabilities in a system that is thought to have strong guardrails for maintaining the integrity of state-court sitting judges.

Ferguson, a longtime deputy district attorney and a Superior Court judge for 10 years, drank during work hours - with colleagues and members of the bar - and carried a weapon on the bench, according to trial testimony.

"The fact that a judge would conduct proceedings while under the influence is unacceptable under any ethical standard. And the fact that at least some people in the judge's orbit had to have been aware of the situation and apparently didn't take effective steps to intervene - such as insisting that the judge seek help, reporting his conduct to the Commission on Judicial Performance, suspending his ability to hear cases, or all of the above - certainly supports a narrative that the system lacks adequate accountability," said former U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy D. Fogel, now executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute.

"I don't think that narrative is fair overall, but this case exposes a weak link in the process," Fogel added.

On Friday, the Commission on Judicial Performance suspended Ferguson from the bench without pay. Throughout the proceedings, he retained his judicial title and collected his $250,000 annual salary - a right granted under the California Constitution.

Ferguson, 74, was convicted last Tuesday of second-degree murder for the Aug. 3, 2023, shooting death of his wife, Sheryl Ferguson, during an alcohol-fueled domestic dispute. He faces 40 years to life in prison when he is sentenced on June 13. People v. Ferguson, 23NF1975 (O.C. Super. Ct., led Aug. 11, 2023)

Ferguson's drinking and affinity for carrying guns was well-known around the North Justice Center courthouse, where he presided over a criminal arraignment calendar, according to trial testimony and interviews with members of the bar. The deputy sheriff assigned to guard his courtroom testified at trial that he regularly had lunch with Ferguson during which the judge drank alcohol.

"I didn't know there was anything wrong with doing that," Deputy Sheriff Mario Magliano said on the witness stand.

A spokesperson for the court declined to comment.

Revelations of Ferguson's drinking during work hours have led the Orange County District Attorney's Office to say it would investigate any cases over which Ferguson presided.

"He admitted on the stand under oath that while he was a magistrate, he was considering cases while he may have been under the influence of alcohol," Spitzer said. "We will be reviewing any and all cases by Judge Ferguson while he was a magistrate where the individual comes forward."

Fogel said court personnel rarely report colleagues' misconduct, often because they might not witness it firsthand like a lawyer or litigant would. Substance abuse may go unnoticed unless its effects appear obvious in court, he said.

"Ultimately, the evidence was about someone with deep emotional issues complicated by alcohol abuse, a combination that unfortunately happens with many people who are charged with serious crimes," Fogel added.

But he said California has been especially willing to police its jurists in ways that other states have not.

"The ethical rules for California judges are detailed and quite stringent in comparison with those in some other states, and California's enforcement mechanisms are relatively strong," he said. "The Commission on Judicial Performance has been increasingly willing in recent years to hold judges who commit serious misconduct accountable."

A robust judicial appointment process that includes background checks, ethics reviews, bar evaluations and public hearings has also helped weed out candidates that might be unsuited for the bench, Fogel said.

Ferguson was elected to the bench in 2014.

"I think that while it's not perfect, the appointment screening process for California judges has become quite careful," Fogel said. "It has evolved significantly from the days when judicial appointments were viewed as political favors. It's interesting that elected judges, who don't go through a screening process, have a statistically higher incidence of discipline than appointed judges."