We don’t know. The Commission did not disclose how it investigated the complaints nor what evidence it considered. Under Commission Rules there are two possible responses to complaints: a staff inquiry and a higher level of scrutiny called a preliminary investigation, which is used where the allegations are more serious or where the Commission intends to use subpoena power or other formal investigative procedures. It appears from the Persky Report that this inquiry was a preliminary investigation.
Despite these procedures, we do not know if the Commission issued subpoenas, what documents were reviewed, whether court files or transcripts were checked to confirm facts, or which witnesses were interviewed, if any. The Report is silent as to the evidence considered by the Commission regarding Judge Persky’s past cases and merely provides conclusory, and incorrect, statements. Based on the Report, the only witness who appears to have been contacted in connection with this inquiry is Judge Persky but we do not know what information he provided in connection with his past cases. Moreover, because the Commission refuses to provide any information to the public in connection under the Public Records Act, the Brown Act, or any other open meeting or open records law, there is no way for the public to discover this information.