In re Ciraolo

In In re Ciraolo (1969) 70 Cal.2d 389, the Alameda County public defender's office represented a criminal defendant with assistant public defender Michael C. Ciraolo assigned as trial counsel. The case was assigned to Judge Robert H. Kroninger for trial. On the same day, Ciraolo filed an affidavit for cause against Judge Kroninger. Ciraolo declared that in connection with a separate case involving another deputy public defender, Judge Kroninger had declared that the public defender and his office were incompetent. Ciraolo claimed that due to this statement the court was prejudiced against him, and that the defendant he was representing could not, therefore, have a fair and impartial trial before Judge Kroninger. ( Ciraolo, supra, 70 Cal.2d at pp. 391-392.) Ciraolo's challenge was heard before another judge who found that Judge Kroninger had not made the statement attributed to him or any statement to that effect and therefore was not disqualified. Judge Kroninger then conducted the criminal trial, with Ciraolo acting as trial counsel. ( Id. at p. 392.) Following the sentencing hearing, with Ciraolo in court, Judge Kroninger conducted a summary proceeding at the conclusion of which he found the public defender in contempt for his conduct in the filing of the "unsupported challenge and of the false affidavit in connection therewith." ( Id. at pp. 392-393.) Ciraolo then sought habeas corpus. In denying relief, the Supreme Court stated: "The judgment and commitment order in this case recite that Ciraolo had filed the offending affidavit (quoting it) under penalty of perjury; that the factual allegations in the affidavit were wholly false, although Ciraolo had declared such facts to be true of his own knowledge; that they charged the judge with judicial misconduct, with slander and with intended neglect of duties; that upon being given opportunity to produce evidence and to explain the filing of the affidavit Ciraolo replied in substance only that his purpose had been to obtain a continuance of the trial; that in the premises Ciraolo did not in good faith believe the truth of his assertions but instead used the affidavit and the disqualification motion simply as one of a number of sequential efforts to obtain continuances; that as a result of Ciraolo's actions the court, its attaches and 60 potential jurymen were idled pending the hearing on petitioner's challenge." ( Id. at pp. 393-394.) The court concluded, "contrary to Ciraolo's contention, such a recitation is obviously adequate to support the order adjudging Ciraolo in contempt for misbehavior in office, for violation of his duty as attorney, assistant public defender and as officer of the court, and for abuse of process." ( Id. at p. 394.) The court also held that the "record obviously supports the inference that petitioner filed his false affidavit as a device in his repeated efforts to secure further continuances." ( Ciraolo, supra, 70 Cal.2d at pp. 398-399.)