LA judge admonished over remarks about prospective jurors' English

The Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Susan Bryant-Deason on Tuesday for remarks she made while trying to ascertain whether two prospective jurors understood English well enough to serve on a jury. The commission said her comments, asking how long they had been in America or been citizens, created an appearance of bias or prejudice and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.

In a statement released Tuesday through her attorneys, Randall A. Miller and Timothy Bucknell of Miller/Waxler LLP, the judge rejected the commission's conclusion that her remarks reflected bias or prejudice.

The admonishment - the first discipline imposed on Bryant-Deason in her 31 years on the bench -- stems from exchanges she had on Sept. 20 and Sept. 21, 2023, before excusing the two from jury service in Shashikant Jogani et al. v. Haresh Jogani et al., BC290553, a 20-year dispute involving ownership of a real estate portfolio and diamond business. The trial lasted from Sept. 18, 2023, through March 8, 2024.

Bryant-Deason, first elected in 1994, was re-elected without opposition and did not appear on the June 2024 ballot.

In one exchange, the commission said, Bryant-Deason questioned a prospective juror who said she immigrated from China about 20 years earlier. Bryant-Deason asked: "Why? You don't speak English. You're not doing anything in our society. You can't be on a jury. What are you doing? What are you doing here?"

The following day, Bryant-Deason asked a second prospective juror, who said she had been in the U.S. for 38 years, whether she had considered taking English classes. After the juror said no, Bryant-Deason responded: "I never thought about taking a Chinese class either, but I don't live in China." The judge then told the juror: "You should be very thankful. Learn English."

The commission concluded the remarks were "demeaning, disparaging, and unnecessary" to determine whether the jurors understood English well enough to serve and found the comments "could reasonably be perceived as reflecting bias or prejudice."

Bryant-Deason's statement noted that the Jogani litigation was unusually complex, had been in the Los Angeles court system for more than 20 years and generated nine appeals over 15 years before she presided over the trial.

"The CJP's Public Admonishment reaches all the way back to the jury impaneling process, and critiques Judge Bryant-Deason's discussion with two prospective jurors out of 400," the statement said.

The response argued Bryant-Deason was attempting "to impanel a jury reflective of California's diverse population and to ensure a fair trial." It noted the seated jury and alternates included "five Asian Americans, four African Americans, two Filipinos, seven Hispanics, and four Caucasians," and stated that no juror or alternate was lost during the five-month trial. The verdict was also upheld on appeal.

Bryant-Deason acknowledged "her phrasing of the questions ... may, in hindsight, have been better expressed." However, she "firmly rejects any suggestion that she acted with bias or prejudice in encouraging a citizen to learn English or noting that it is a privilege to live in the United States and be able to serve on a jury."

The commission rejected Bryant-Deason's argument that Orange County Superior Court Judge Cheri Pham's denial of a disqualification motion by attorneys for the defendant precluded the commission from finding misconduct."

Rick L. Richmond of Larson LLP, in February 2024 accused Bryant-Deason of judicial misconduct including racism and bias against his client, Haresh Jogani, a real estate mogul accused of breaching a verbal contract with his brothers. (The jury shortly thereafter awarded an estimated $10 billion in damages to the plaintiff and cross-complainants in the five-month trial. Briefing is nearly complete in the defendant's appeal to the state Supreme Court. Jogani et al. v. Jogani et al., S296083.)

Ruling on Richmond's motion, Pham wrote on April 23, 2024: "A person aware of all the facts would not reasonably entertain a doubt that Judge Bryant-Deason would be able to be impartial in this proceeding. Nor have the Haresh Defendants offered any evidence to show that Judge Bryant-Deason is biased or prejudiced against a party or attorney in this proceeding."

Pham nevertheless found Bryant-Deason's remarks to the prospective jurors "insensitive and inappropriate."

In her responses to the investigation and proposed discipline, the commission stated, Bryant-Deason demonstrated "a limited appreciation of the impropriety of her conduct." While acknowledging her remarks were insensitive, the commission said Bryant-Deason "did not appear to fully grasp that her remarks created the appearance of bias or prejudice."