Calaveras County, CA – Calaveras County Superior Court Judge Timothy S. Healy has been issued a public admonishment by the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) for engaging in a pattern of inappropriate courtroom conduct over a period of years, spanning from 2017 to late 2023. The discipline was imposed for repeated failures to maintain the patience, dignity, and courtesy required of a judicial officer.

A Record of Inappropriate Demeanor

The 21-page admonishment detailed several incidents that demonstrated Judge Healy’s consistent failure to uphold proper judicial temperament toward attorneys, litigants, crime victims, and the public. His misconduct included:

• Discourteous and Disparaging Remarks: The most notable incidents involved improper comments in late 2023 regarding odors in the courtroom.
  • In November 2023, he made lengthy, inappropriate comments on the record about his perception that an alleged crime victim smelled of cannabis, conveying an appearance of bias against the victim.
  • In December 2023, he told courtroom attendees, “Whichever one of you reeks, you need a shower,” due to an odor he perceived as marijuana, which court staff later determined was actually a skunk in the parking lot.
• Appearance of Bias and Favoritism: Judge Healy was found to have given the appearance of bias and favoritism toward a specific attorney in one matter. In another, he improperly usurped the role of the prosecutor, questioned a key witness himself, and interfered with the attorney-client relationship.
• Interfering with Legal Rights: He improperly denied lawyers their statutory right to file peremptory challenges and made improper comments that appeared intended to dissuade attorneys from exercising that right, thus impeding the proper functioning of the court.
• Unauthorized Communication: The judge also improperly initiated an ex parte communication (a communication outside the presence of both parties’ counsel) with a minor in a detention facility in a juvenile delinquency matter.

Aggravating Circumstance: Conduct Under Supervision

The CJP considered it an aggravating factor that some of Judge Healy’s misconduct, including the highly inappropriate comments about the odors in the courtroom, occurred while he was actively participating in a commission-led judicial mentoring program specifically established to address his demeanor issues. This suggested a persistent challenge in conforming his behavior to judicial standards despite intervention.

Conclusion: A Call for Fundamental Change

The public admonishment serves as a serious rebuke to Judge Healy. While he was not removed from the bench, the severity and recurring nature of the infractions—especially the discourteous and biased treatment of individuals, including a crime victim, and the interference with fundamental legal procedures demonstrates a significant ethical lapse. The case underscores the essential requirement for judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous, and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The ultimate conclusion is that Judge Healy must implement fundamental changes to his courtroom management and professional conduct to restore full faith in his ability to preside justly.