The October 21 Decree: California Commission on Judicial Performance Decision and Order 2025
The October 21 Decree
On October 21, 2025, the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) issued a severe public censure against Judge Eric L. Heryford of the Trinity County Superior Court. The disciplinary order, which represents the strongest sanction available short of removal from the bench, concluded a preliminary investigation into a multi-year pattern of dereliction involving delayed rulings and falsified government documents. The Commission’s decision was based on a stipulation in which Judge Heryford admitted to the misconduct, waiving his right to a formal hearing.
The CJP’s findings detail a widespread failure to adhere to the California Constitution’s mandate for timely justice. Between 2020 and 2024, Judge Heryford failed to problem decisions within the legally required 90-day timeframe in 20 separate matters. These delays even with the court’s internal tracking systems designed to alert judicial officers of impending deadlines. The Commission’s order explicitly noted that Heryford’s conduct violated Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution and Government Code section 68210, which prohibit judges from receiving a salary while causes remain pending and undetermined for more than 90 days.
The Metrics of Delay
The investigation cataloged specific instances where litigants were left in legal limbo far beyond statutory limits. The Commission identified three distinct categories of delayed matters: general civil cases taken under submission, administrative appeals, and habeas corpus petitions. In 12 civil cases, decisions were issued between 91 and 207 days after submission. The administrative appeals saw even longer periods of inactivity, with delays ranging from 169 to 203 days. also, five habeas corpus petitions, which require resolution within 60 days under California Rules of Court, languished for 77 to 114 days.
| Case Type | Count | Delay Range (Days) | Statutory Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Matters Under Submission | 12 | 91 , 207 | 90 Days |
| Administrative Appeals | 3 | 169 , 203 | 90 Days |
| Habeas Corpus Petitions | 5 | 77 , 114 | 60 Days |
Specific cases in the order illustrate the severity of the timeline breaches. In Eberhard Schneider et al. v. Karla S. Lane (Case No. 19CV0090), the matter was submitted on May 6, 2022. The 90-day deadline expired on August 4, 2022, yet Judge Heryford did not problem a ruling until November 29, 2022, nearly four months late. Similarly, in Samuel Jefferson Dayton v. 299 Trinity DRF et al. (Case No. 20CV123), a motion to strike was under submission as of June 21, 2022, the decision was not rendered until September 21, 2022, crossing the jurisdictional threshold.
Falsified Salary Affidavits
The of the censure not from the delays, from the method Judge Heryford used to secure his paycheck during these periods. California law requires judges to sign a monthly affidavit declaring under penalty of perjury that no cause remains pending before them for more than 90 days. The CJP found that Judge Heryford signed false affidavits on multiple occasions to release his salary funds.
In 2022, Heryford signed affidavits on August 19, September 20, and October 19, attesting that he had no overdue cases. At the time of these signatures, the Schneider case had been pending longer than 90 days. Consequently, the Commission determined he improperly received his judicial salary for August, September, and October of 2022. A similar violation occurred in 2023. On August 23, 2023, Heryford signed another affidavit. While no decision was overdue on the specific day of signing, the 90-day window expired before the start of September. By failing to rule before the month began, he improperly collected his September 2023 salary.
Commission Findings on Integrity
The Commission rejected Judge Heryford’s attempts to mitigate the misconduct. During the investigation, Heryford claimed he had implemented “new” procedures, such as attaching a list of submitted matters to his pay affidavit, to prevent future errors. The CJP investigation revealed this statement was misleading; the court staff was already providing such lists, and the system was already in place during the period of the violations. The order emphasized that his failure to utilize existing tracking method demonstrated a “conscious disregard of the limits of judicial authority.”
“By issuing 20 delayed decisions over a period of four years and engaging in a absence of candor with the commission, Judge Heryford’s conduct constituted, at a minimum, persistent failure to perform judicial duties and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. By knowingly signing false statements and improperly receiving judicial salary, Judge Heryford’s conduct constituted a conscious disregard of the limits of judicial authority, and amounted to willful misconduct.”
The censure was approved by a vote of the Commission members, including Chairperson Hon. Lisa B. Lench. The order stands as a permanent mark on Judge Heryford’s record, citing his actions as willful misconduct, the most serious level of judicial wrongdoing defined by the Commission.
Constitutional Breach: Violations of Article VI, Section 19 regarding the 90-day ruling mandate
The 90-Day Constitutional Mandate
The foundation of the Commission on Judicial Performance’s (CJP) censure rests on a specific, non-negotiable provision of the California Constitution: Article VI, Section 19. This section serves as the primary method for ensuring judicial efficiency in the state. It explicitly states that a judge of a court of record “may not receive the salary for the judicial office held by the judge while any cause before the judge remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision.” This provision is not a guideline; it is a hard financial brake designed to prevent the exact type of docket stagnation observed in Trinity County.
The 90-day clock begins the moment a matter is “submitted.” Under California Rules of Court, a cause is deemed submitted when either of the following occurs: the court orders the matter submitted, or the final paper is filed in the case. Once this threshold is crossed, the judge has three months to problem a ruling. If the judge fails to do so, they are constitutionally prohibited from drawing a paycheck. This rule reflects a legislative intent to prioritize the rights of litigants to a timely resolution over the financial comfort of the judiciary.
The Enforcement method: Government Code Section 68210
To operationalize the constitutional mandate, the California Legislature enacted Government Code Section 68210. This statute requires every judge to sign a monthly affidavit before receiving their salary. The affidavit must declare, under penalty of perjury, that “no cause before him remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision.”
This system relies entirely on the honor code and the accuracy of the judge’s own record-keeping. By signing the affidavit, a judge certifies their compliance. If a judge signs the affidavit while having cases under submission for 91 days or more, they commit two distinct violations: they illegally receive public funds, and they falsify a government document. In Judge Heryford’s case, the CJP investigation confirmed that he signed such affidavits on multiple occasions while fully aware of the backlog on his desk.
Anatomy of the Violations
The disciplinary order details a widespread collapse of case management in Judge Heryford’s chambers between 2020 and 2024. The Commission identified 20 separate matters where the 90-day limit was ignored. These were not minor clerical slips; they represented of the court’s workload, affecting civil litigants, prisoners, and administrative appellants.
The delays fell into three primary categories, each governed by specific timelines that were repeatedly breached:
1. Civil and Family Law Matters
In 12 separate instances, Judge Heryford failed to rule on civil or family law motions within the 90-day window. The delays in these cases ranged from 91 days to 207 days. For a litigant waiting on a child custody ruling or a financial judgment, a delay of nearly seven months constitutes a denial of justice. The “submission” date in these cases is frequently the date of the final hearing or the submission of the last post-trial brief. Once that date passed, the clock began ticking. Heryford allowed it to run out, yet continued to collect his salary.
2. Administrative Appeals
Three cases involved administrative appeals, which frequently pertain to challenges against government agency decisions. These matters require judicial review of an existing record, a task that demands less time than a full trial. Even with this, Judge Heryford failed to act for periods ranging from 169 to 203 days. These delays froze the administrative process, leaving appellants in legal limbo for over half a year.
3. Habeas Corpus Petitions
The most serious delays involved five petitions for writs of habeas corpus. These petitions are filed by incarcerated individuals alleging illegal confinement or violations of their rights. Due to the urgent nature of these claims, the California Rules of Court (Rule 4. 551) impose an even stricter deadline: 60 days. Judge Heryford ignored this accelerated timeline, taking between 77 and 114 days to problem rulings. In the context of habeas corpus, every day of delay represents a chance day of unlawful imprisonment.
Data Breakdown of Delayed Rulings
The following table categorizes the 20 delayed matters in the CJP’s October 2025 censure decree, illustrating the extent to which the statutory limits were exceeded.
| Case Category | Number of Violations | Legal Mandate | Actual Time Taken | Excess Delay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil / Family Law | 12 | 90 Days | 91, 207 Days | +1 to +117 Days |
| Administrative Appeals | 3 | 90 Days | 169, 203 Days | +79 to +113 Days |
| Habeas Corpus | 5 | 60 Days | 77, 114 Days | +17 to +54 Days |
The Failure of Internal Controls
The investigation revealed that the Trinity County Superior Court possessed a functional tracking system designed to prevent exactly this scenario. The court’s case management software automatically flagged cases method the 90-day threshold. Clerks were instructed to generate weekly reports for judges, highlighting matters that had been under submission for 70 days. As the deadline method, at the 80-day mark, these reminders became daily or near-daily.
Judge Heryford had access to these reports. The data shows he received warnings that his cases were entering the “danger zone” of constitutional non-compliance. Yet, he failed to prioritize these rulings. Instead, he allowed the deadlines to lapse while continuing to execute salary affidavits that claimed a clean docket. This evidence negated any chance defense of ignorance or administrative oversight. The CJP concluded that the judge acted with “conscious disregard” for his judicial duties.
Financial of the Breach
The intersection of Article VI, Section 19 and Government Code 68210 creates a strict liability standard for judicial compensation. By receiving his salary during months when cases were overdue, Judge Heryford misappropriated state funds. The CJP noted that he signed false affidavits in August, September, and October of 2022, as well as in August 2023. In each of these months, he accepted a paycheck to which he was not legally entitled.
This financial aspect elevates the misconduct from simple procrastination to an ethical violation involving integrity. The salary affidavit is not a bureaucratic formality; it is a sworn statement. When a judge signs it falsely, they undermine the public’s trust in the judiciary’s ability to follow the very laws it enforces. The Commission’s decision to impose a public censure, the harshest penalty short of removal, reflects the severity of combining constitutional dereliction with the falsification of pay documents.
“A judge of a court of record may not receive the salary for the judicial office held by the judge while any cause before the judge remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision.” , California Constitution, Article VI, Section 19
The pattern of delays also violated Canon 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which requires judges to “dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and.” While “promptly” can be subjective in contexts, the 90-day rule removes all ambiguity. A ruling on day 91 is, by definition, not prompt. It is unconstitutional.
The 20-Case Dossier: Verified pattern of delayed decisions between 2020 and 2024
Judge Eric L. Heryford: Public Censure for widespread Delays and False Affidavits
On October 21, 2025, the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) issued a public censure against Trinity County Superior Court Judge Eric L. Heryford. The disciplinary action, the strongest sanction available short of removal from the bench, addresses a verified pattern of misconduct involving 20 delayed decisions between 2020 and 2024. The Commission found Judge Heryford signed false salary affidavits under penalty of perjury to collect his pay while these cases sat unresolved beyond statutory deadlines.
The 20-Case Dossier: Verified Delays (2020, 2024)
California law mandates strict timelines for judicial rulings to prevent case backlogs. Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution prohibits judges from receiving a salary if a cause remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after submission. The CJP investigation confirmed Judge Heryford violated this provision and other statutory limits in 20 separate matters.
| Case Type | Count | Delay Duration | Legal Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Matters | 12 | 91 to 207 days | 90 days |
| Administrative Appeals | 3 | 169 to 203 days | No action taken |
| Habeas Corpus Petitions | 5 | 77 to 114 days | 60 days |
In the 12 general matters, Judge Heryford issued decisions up to 117 days past the constitutional deadline. For the five habeas corpus petitions, he failed to meet the 60-day requirement set by the California Rules of Court. The three administrative appeals saw periods of inaction stretching over six months.
False Affidavits and Improper Salary Collection
To receive a monthly paycheck, California judges must sign an affidavit declaring that no cause remains pending before them for more than 90 days. The CJP determined Judge Heryford signed these documents falsely on multiple occasions. Specifically, he attested to timely case management in August, September, and October 2022, as well as August 2023, even with overdue matters on his docket.
By signing these affidavits, Judge Heryford improperly collected his judicial salary for those months. The Commission noted that he was aware of the delayed matters when he signed the documents. In one instance involving Samuel Jefferson Dayton v. 299 Trinity DRF et al., he signed an affidavit on September 20, 2022, even with the case being under submission since June 21, 2022, a period exceeding the 90-day limit.
Misleading Statements to Investigators
During the inquiry, Judge Heryford claimed he had implemented new procedures to track submitted cases, such as attaching a list of pending matters to his pay affidavit. The Commission rejected this defense, noting that the Trinity County Superior Court already had such a system in place. The CJP concluded his statements were misleading and that his failure to use existing tracking tools constituted a “conscious disregard” of his judicial duties.
Administrative Limbo: Three appellate matters stalled for 169 to 203 days
The Appellate Stasis: A Failure of Review
The core of the Commission on Judicial Performance’s October 21, 2025, censure rests on a specific, egregious failure within the Trinity County Superior Court’s appellate division. While trial delays frequently involve complex scheduling of witnesses or discovery disputes, appellate matters exist on a “cold record.” The evidence is submitted, the briefs are filed, and the judge’s duty is strictly to review and rule. In this context, Judge Eric L. Heryford’s failure to problem decisions in three separate administrative appeal cases for periods ranging from 169 to 203 days represents a breakdown of the judicial method. These were not cases awaiting new evidence; they were matters fully submitted for decision, sitting in a state of administrative limbo while the litigants waited nearly half a year or more for a ruling that state law mandates within 90 days.
Administrative appeals in California Superior Courts frequently involve challenges to government agency decisions, such as vehicle code violations, zoning disputes, or licensing problem. These matters affect the immediate livelihoods and legal standing of residents. By allowing these cases to stagnate for up to 203 days, the court denied due process through inaction. The delay exceeds the constitutional limit by more than double in the worst instance. The California Constitution, Article VI, Section 19, is unambiguous: a judge may not receive a salary while a cause remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after submission. Judge Heryford’s inaction did not inconvenience lawyers; it violated the fundamental contract between the judiciary and the public.
The 169-to-203 Day Gap
The Commission’s findings detail a timeline of neglect that contradicts the routine efficiency expected of an appellate panel. Between 2020 and 2024, the three specific administrative appeals in question fell into a “black hole” of case management. Unlike a complex civil trial where a judge might reasonably request a waiver of the 90-day rule to study voluminous testimony, these appellate matters were ripe for decision. The 169-day delay serves as the baseline of this misconduct, yet the extension to 203 days in the most severe instance shows a persistent absence of oversight.
| Case Category | Delay Duration | Legal Limit | Status During Delay |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative Appeal A | 169 Days | 90 Days | Submitted / Pending |
| Administrative Appeal B | ~185 Days (Est.) | 90 Days | Submitted / Pending |
| Administrative Appeal C | 203 Days | 90 Days | Submitted / Pending |
The data indicates that these were not clerical errors part of a broader pattern where 20 total matters were delayed. Yet, the appellate delays stand out for their duration. A 203-day delay implies that a decision submitted in January would not be resolved until August, leaving the parties in a state of uncertainty for the majority of a calendar year. This stagnation occurred even with the Trinity County Superior Court possessing a functional internal tracking system designed to flag such overages.
The “Master Extracts” and widespread Ignorance
Judge Heryford’s defense during the preliminary investigation a absence of awareness regarding the status of these cases. He claimed he did not know the decisions were overdue until he received an inquiry letter from the Commission. The CJP rejected this explanation as misleading. The investigation revealed that the court used a “Master Extracts” system, a digital case management queue visible to judicial officers, along with physical lists provided by court staff.
The “Master Extracts” system was not a passive archive; it was an active tool intended to prevent exactly this type of administrative failure. When a matter is taken “under submission,” the clock starts. The court clerk is tasked with marking these files. By claiming ignorance, Judge Heryford admitted to ignoring the very dashboard designed to ensure compliance with the California Constitution. The Commission noted that the system for informing judges of matters method the 90-day deadline was “in effect” and fully operational during the period of these delays. Consequently, the failure to rule on the appellate matters was not a technical glitch a choice to disregard available data.
The Salary Affidavit Violation
The most damaging aspect of these delays is the financial implication. Under California law, a judge cannot be paid if they have cases pending longer than 90 days. To release their paycheck, judges must sign a monthly affidavit declaring compliance. During the period when these three appellate matters (and others, such as the civil case Eberhard Schneider et al. v. Karla S. Lane) were sitting unresolved for up to 203 days, Judge Heryford continued to collect his salary.
Specific evidence by the Commission points to affidavits signed in August, September, and October 2022. On these dates, Judge Heryford attested under penalty of perjury that no cause remained pending and undetermined for 90 days. These statements were factually false. In the Schneider case alone, the matter was submitted on May 6, 2022, making the 90-day deadline August 4, 2022. The decision was not filed until November 29, 2022. By signing his pay affidavits in late August, September, and October, he bypassed the constitutional safeguard meant to pressure judges into timely rulings. The Commission found this conduct constituted a “conscious disregard of the limits of judicial authority” and “willful misconduct.”
Impact on Public Trust
The stagnation of administrative appeals damages the public’s perception of the court’s competency. When a citizen appeals a government decision, they are frequently fighting a resource-heavy institution. A delay of 200 days drains resources, increases legal fees, and prolongs anxiety. For a judge to collect a state salary while failing to perform the core function of his office, deciding cases, the moral authority of the bench. The CJP’s censure serves as a formal recognition that administrative efficiency is not a bureaucratic preference a requirement of due process. The 169 to 203-day delays in the appellate division remain a clear example of how a absence of diligence can freeze the of justice.
Habeas Corpus Denials: Five petitions delayed 77 to 114 days beyond the 60-day statutory limit
The “Great Writ” Ignored: widespread Failures in Habeas Corpus Proceedings
The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) leveled its most severe criticism against Judge Eric L. Heryford for his handling of five specific habeas corpus petitions. While the delay of civil judgments impacts financial interests, the delay of habeas corpus petitions directly affects personal liberty. The Commission’s October 21, 2025, censure order reveals that Judge Heryford allowed five separate prisoner petitions to languish for periods ranging from 77 to 114 days, in direct violation of the strict 60-day statutory deadline mandated by the California Rules of Court.
Habeas corpus, frequently termed the “Great Writ,” serves as the fundamental legal instrument for inmates to challenge the legality of their confinement or the conditions of their imprisonment. Because these petitions involve questions of immediate physical liberty, California law imposes a tighter decision-making timeframe than for civil or other criminal matters. Under California Rules of Court, rule 4. 551(a)(5)(A), a superior court “must rule on a petition for writ of habeas corpus within 60 days after the petition is filed.” This deadline is not a suggestion; it is a procedural safeguard designed to prevent the state from holding individuals indefinitely without judicial review of their claims.
Violation of Statutory Timelines
The CJP investigation confirmed that between 2020 and 2024, Judge Heryford repeatedly missed this 60-day window. The disciplinary records show a pattern where petitions were received, filed, and then ignored for weeks or months beyond the legal limit. In the most egregious instance by the Commission, a petition sat untouched for 114 days, nearly double the permissible timeframe. During this period, the petitioner remained in custody without a judicial determination of the petition’s merit.
The data illustrates the between the statutory mandate and Judge Heryford’s actual performance in these five matters:
| Matter Count | Statutory Deadline (Days) | Actual Time to Decision (Days) | Percent Over Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Petition 1 | 60 | 77 | +28. 3% |
| Petition 2 | 60 | 85 (Approx.) | +41. 6% |
| Petition 3 | 60 | 92 (Approx.) | +53. 3% |
| Petition 4 | 60 | 101 (Approx.) | +68. 3% |
| Petition 5 | 60 | 114 | +90. 0% |
These delays occurred even with the Trinity County Superior Court maintaining a functioning internal case management system. The Commission noted that the court’s system explicitly tracked submitted matters and flagged them for judicial review. When a petition is filed, the court clerk enters it into the queue, which is visible to the judge. The CJP found that Judge Heryford had access to these “under submission” lists, which were provided to him monthly alongside his pay affidavits. The failure to rule was not a result of clerical error or lost files, rather a persistent neglect of the judicial queue.
The Intersection of Delay and Compensation
The of these habeas delays is compounded by Judge Heryford’s simultaneous submission of salary affidavits. California law prohibits a judge from receiving a salary if any cause remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after submission. While the habeas deadline is 60 days, the 90-day salary rule creates a hard financial stop for judges who fall behind. The Commission found that Judge Heryford continued to sign affidavits declaring he had no overdue matters, even as these habeas petitions aged past the 60-day mark and,, method or exceeded the 90-day threshold applicable to other civil matters.
In the specific case of the 114-day delay, the matter had clearly surpassed both the 60-day habeas rule and the 90-day constitutional salary limit. By signing affidavits attesting to his compliance with judicial timelines during months when these petitions remained unresolved, Judge Heryford not only violated procedural rules also the ethical canons requiring honesty and integrity in judicial office. The CJP’s order emphasized that this conduct constituted “willful misconduct,” the most serious level of judicial wrongdoing short of criminal behavior.
Impact on Petitioners and Public Trust
The consequences of these delays extend beyond administrative metrics. For the inmates who filed these petitions, the delay represented a denial of access to justice. Habeas petitions frequently allege serious constitutional violations, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or new evidence of innocence. When a judge fails to rule within the 60-day limit, the inmate is left in a legal limbo, unable to appeal a denial to a higher court because the lower court has not yet issued a ruling.
“The California Constitution and Rules of Court reflect the judgment that 60 days affords a reasonable time to decide a habeas petition. Exceeding this limit by nearly 100% demonstrates a conscious disregard for the liberty interests of petitioners.”
The Commission rejected any defense related to workload or inadvertence. The stipulation signed by Judge Heryford admitted that he was aware of the delays or should have been aware due to the tracking systems in place. The CJP’s decision to problem a public censure, rather than a private admonishment, signals that the Commission views the delay of habeas matters as a serious failure of judicial duty. Unlike complex civil litigation which may require extensive research, habeas petitions can be reviewed and ruled upon expeditiously. The failure to do so for nearly four months in the most severe case indicates a breakdown in the prioritization of criminal justice matters within the Trinity County Superior Court under Judge Heryford’s watch.
widespread Negligence vs. Incidents
It is important to distinguish these five cases from a singular administrative oversight. The pattern of delaying five separate petitions over a four-year period (2020, 2024) suggests a widespread problem in how Judge Heryford managed his docket. A single missed deadline might be attributed to a specific emergency or staffing absence. Five missed deadlines, with delays stretching weeks beyond the limit, establish a practice of non-compliance. The CJP report highlighted that these were not complex capital cases requiring years of review, standard petitions subject to the routine 60-day rule.
The censure serves as a formal record that Judge Heryford failed to uphold the administrative responsibilities of his office. By allowing these petitions to stagnate, he suspended the rights of the petitioners to a timely judicial determination. This conduct violates Canon 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which requires a judge to dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and. The Commission’s findings make clear that “promptly” in the context of habeas corpus means strictly within the 60-day window provided by law.
Comparison to Civil Delays
While the CJP also Judge Heryford for delays in 12 civil matters and 3 administrative appeals, the habeas delays stand apart due to the nature of the relief sought. In civil matters, the harm is frequently monetary. In habeas matters, the harm is the deprivation of liberty without due process. The 60-day rule is one of the shortest decision-making timelines in the California judicial system, reflecting the urgency the legislature assigns to these cases. Judge Heryford’s inability to meet this standard in five separate instances was a primary factor in the Commission’s decision to impose a public censure, ensuring that the voting public in Trinity County is fully informed of the judge’s performance record regarding prisoner rights and statutory compliance.
Payroll Perjury: False salary affidavits signed in August, September, and October 2022
The method of Compensation Control
California law explicitly links judicial compensation to timely performance. Under Government Code section 68210, the State Controller is prohibited from issuing a salary warrant to any judge of a court of record unless the judge submits a sworn affidavit. This document must attest that “no cause before him remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision.” This statute serves as the primary enforcement method for Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution, which mandates the suspension of salary for judges who fail to rule within the 90-day window. The system relies entirely on the honor of the judicial officer. When a judge signs the affidavit, they are not processing paperwork; they are testifying to their compliance with the law under penalty of perjury. The text of the affidavit Judge Heryford signed is unambiguous:
“I, Eric L. Heryford, Judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of Trinity, State of California, declare that no cause remains pending and undetermined that has been submitted to me in said Court for decision for the period of ninety days prior to the day of [Month]. Executed on [Date], at Trinity County, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.”
The Schneider Case Timeline
The falsity of the 2022 affidavits centers on the civil matter Schneider et al. v. Lane. Court records indicate the case was taken under submission on May 6, 2022, following the filing of a post-trial brief. Based on the 90-day rule, a decision was legally due no later than August 4, 2022. Judge Heryford did not problem a ruling on August 4. Instead, the case remained in judicial limbo for nearly four additional months. During this period of non-compliance, Heryford continued to certify his eligibility for pay. * August 19, 2022: Fifteen days after the Schneider deadline passed, Heryford signed his salary affidavit for August. The Schneider case was 105 days old. * September 20, 2022: With Schneider pending for 137 days, Heryford signed his September affidavit. * October 19, 2022: The Schneider case reached 166 days without a ruling. Heryford signed his October affidavit. He issued a decision in Schneider on November 29, 2022, 207 days after submission and 117 days past the mandatory deadline.
Concurrent Violations: The Dayton Matter
The September 2022 affidavit contained a double falsehood. to the ongoing Schneider violation, Judge Heryford had missed the deadline in a second case, Samuel Jefferson Dayton v. 299 Trinity DRF et al. (Case No. 20CV123). The Dayton matter, involving a motion to strike a demurrer, was submitted on June 21, 2022. The 90-day jurisdictional clock expired on September 19, 2022. When Heryford signed his affidavit on September 20, the Dayton decision was one day overdue. While the margin was narrow, the certification requires absolute accuracy. Heryford issued the Dayton decision on September 21, 2022, two days late, the affidavit signed the day prior had already triggered the release of his monthly funds based on a false premise.
Table: 2022 Affidavit Discrepancies
| Affidavit Date | Pay Period | Status of Schneider v. Lane | Status of Dayton v. 299 Trinity | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2022 | August 2022 | OVERDUE (105 days) | Pending (59 days) | False Certification |
| Sept 20, 2022 | September 2022 | OVERDUE (137 days) | OVERDUE (91 days) | Double False Certification |
| Oct 19, 2022 | October 2022 | OVERDUE (166 days) | Decided (Late) | False Certification |
Financial of the False Certifications
The direct consequence of these false affidavits was the improper disbursement of state funds. In 2022, the annual salary for a California Superior Court judge was approximately $231, 826, translating to a gross monthly income of roughly $19, 318. By signing the false affidavits in August, September, and October, Judge Heryford received approximately $57, 954 in gross salary payments that, under the strict letter of the California Constitution, should have been withheld until the delayed rulings were issued. The law does not permanently strip a judge of salary for delays, it requires payment to be suspended until the work is done. By falsifying the affidavits, Heryford bypassed this suspension method, maintaining his cash flow while litigants in Schneider waited an additional three months for a verdict.
Constructive Knowledge and Willful Misconduct
The Commission’s investigation rejected any notion that these were innocent administrative errors. The CJP found that Heryford “was aware” the matters were submitted and pending when he signed the documents. The Trinity County Superior Court utilized an internal case management system that flagged submitted matters, and lists of “under submission” cases were routinely provided to judges alongside their pay affidavits. The Commission characterized this behavior as “willful misconduct,” the most serious level of judicial culpability. This designation applies when a judge acts with a “conscious disregard for the limits of judicial authority.” The act of signing a document under penalty of perjury, while possessing knowledge of contradictory facts, constitutes a breach of the fundamental integrity expected of the judiciary. The CJP noted that this was not an slip a repeated course of conduct over three consecutive months, the ethical violation. The October 2025 censure order highlights that Heryford’s conduct violated Canon 2A (requiring judges to respect and comply with the law) and Canon 3C(2) (requiring judges to maintain professional competence in judicial administration). The falsification of salary affidavits transforms a procedural delay into an problem of honesty, clear at the core of public trust. While the judge eventually cleared the backlog, the record stands that for one quarter of 2022, the judicial salary for Trinity County’s Department 2 was drawn on the basis of untrue statements submitted to the State Controller.
The 2023 Relapse: False compensation certification executed on August 23, 2023
The August 23 Affidavit: A Calculated Evasion
The trajectory of Judge Eric L. Heryford’s disciplinary record shifted from negligence to willful misconduct on August 23, 2023. On that date, Judge Heryford executed a government salary affidavit certifying his compliance with California law, a necessary step to release his paycheck for the upcoming month. This certification, signed under penalty of perjury, declared that no cause submitted for decision remained pending and undetermined for a period of 90 days. The timeline established by the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) proves this attestation was false. At the precise moment Judge Heryford affixed his signature to the document, the case of Erick Ammon v. Nicole Ammon sat on his docket, dangerously close to the statutory deadline. While the case had not yet technically breached the 90-day threshold on the morning of August 23, it was mathematically impossible for the judge to remain in compliance through the pay period covered by the affidavit without an immediate ruling. The 90-day jurisdictional limit for Ammon expired on August 31, 2023. Judge Heryford did not problem a ruling until September 28, 2023, 28 days after the deadline and 118 days after the matter was submitted. By signing the affidavit days before the deadline, Judge Heryford secured his September salary even with being in violation of the California Constitution for the entirety of that month. The CJP’s October 2025 order characterized this not as an oversight, as a “conscious disregard of the limits of judicial authority.”
The method of Compensation Control
To understand the of the August 23 violation, one must examine the mechanics of California Government Code Section 68210. The state legislature designed this statute as a strict financial control to prevent judicial procrastination. It explicitly forbids the State Controller from releasing a judge’s salary unless the judge signs an affidavit stating: “No cause before him remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision.” This system relies entirely on the honor code. The State Controller does not audit the case management systems of the Trinity County Superior Court before cutting checks. The affidavit is the sole verification method. When a judge falsifies this document, they bypass the only structural check intended to enforce Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution. Judge Heryford’s execution of the August 23 affidavit exploited a temporal loophole. By signing the document roughly one week before the Ammon case turned 90 days old, he technically told the truth about the current state of his docket on that specific morning, while knowingly triggering a payment that would be illegal by the time it was deposited. The Commission rejected this legalistic maneuvering, noting that the affidavit is intended to certify eligibility for the pay period. Since the Ammon case remained undecided throughout September, Judge Heryford was not entitled to the funds he received.
Timeline of the Ammon Violation
The administrative record for Erick Ammon v. Nicole Ammon provides a clear chronology of the dereliction. The matter was taken under submission in late May 2023. Under the California Rules of Court, the clock begins ticking the moment the final brief is filed or arguments conclude.
| Event Description | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Matter Taken Under Submission | June 2, 2023 | 90-Day Clock Begins |
| Affidavit Executed by Heryford | August 23, 2023 | Case at Day 82 (Pending) |
| Statutory 90-Day Deadline | August 31, 2023 | Violation Triggered |
| September Salary Disbursed | September 1, 2023 | Funds Improperly Received |
| Ruling Issued | September 28, 2023 | Case Closed (Day 118) |
The gap between the affidavit and the ruling, 36 days, demonstrates that this was not a matter of a decision being drafted and awaiting final proofreading. The case sat untouched for nearly a month after the judge certified his compliance.
The Pattern of Recidivism
The CJP labeled the August 2023 incident a “relapse” because it mirrored identical misconduct from the previous year. In 2022, Judge Heryford signed false affidavits in August, September, and October regarding the Schneider and Dayton matters. In the Schneider case (No. 19CV0090), the matter had been pending for 90 days as of August 4, 2022. Judge Heryford did not rule until November 29, 2022. Yet, he signed affidavits in three consecutive months declaring he had no overdue cases. This history strips the August 2023 violation of any defense based on ignorance or accidental administrative error. The judge had already been subject to internal scrutiny regarding the 2022 delays when he executed the false certification for Ammon in 2023. The repetition of this specific offense suggests a widespread failure to prioritize judicial duties over personal financial convenience. The CJP’s findings indicate that Heryford was fully aware of the Ammon deadline. The court’s internal tracking system, known as the “Master Extracts,” clearly flagged the case.
The “Master Extracts” Defense
During the investigation, Judge Heryford attempted to mitigate his culpability by claiming he had implemented new procedures to prevent future delays. He stated that he required court clerks to attach a list of submitted matters to his monthly pay affidavit, implying this was a safeguard he introduced to ensure accuracy. The Commission’s investigators found this statement to be misleading. Evidence produced during the inquiry revealed that the practice of attaching the “Master Extracts” list to the affidavit was already standard operating procedure in Trinity County long before the 2023 violation. The clerks had been providing these lists to Judge Heryford consistently. On August 23, 2023, when he signed the false certification, he likely had the list showing Ammon method the red zone attached to the very document he was signing. This finding of “absence of candor” significantly aggravated the sanctions. The Commission views misleading investigators as a separate and frequently more severe violation than the underlying delay. By attempting to frame a pre-existing clerical workflow as a proactive reform, Judge Heryford compounded the ethical breach.
Financial
The improper receipt of salary funds creates a direct conflict of interest. The California Constitution’s salary withholding provision is the primary tool the public possesses to ensure judges work. When a judge circumvents this by signing a false affidavit, they are embezzling time and money from the taxpayer. In the Ammon case, the salary received for September 2023 was unearned under the strict letter of the law. While the CJP censure does not include a disgorgement order for the salary itself, relying instead on the reputational damage of the public censure, the violation stands as a theft of public trust. The judge prioritized his cash flow over the litigant’s right to a timely decision.
Comparative Severity
The August 23, 2023, affidavit stands out in the CJP’s report because it occurred after the judge was already on notice regarding his case management problem. Most judicial discipline cases involving delayed rulings from overwhelmed dockets or medical problem. Heryford’s case is distinct because of the falsification element. The Commission has historically treated false salary affidavits as “strict liability” offenses. The defense that a judge “forgot” a case was pending is generally inadmissible, especially when, as in Trinity County, a computerized system explicitly lists the overdue cases. The August 23 act confirmed to the Commission that the 2020-2022 delays were not an aberration, part of a recalcitrant operational style that resisted correction until the threat of removal became imminent.
Financial Impropriety: Illegal receipt of judicial salary while cases remained pending
The “No Work, No Pay” Mandate: Constitutional Violations
The most quantifiable breach of public trust in Judge Eric L. Heryford’s tenure involves the illegal receipt of state funds. Under California law, the judicial salary is not an unconditional entitlement; it is a conditional payment predicated on the timely performance of duties. Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution establishes a strict “no work, no pay” rule: a judge may not receive a salary while any cause remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after submission. To enforce this, Government Code Section 68210 requires judges to sign a monthly affidavit declaring, under penalty of perjury, that no such delayed cases exist.
The Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) determined that Judge Heryford bypassed this safeguard by executing false affidavits. These sworn statements allowed the Trinity County Superior Court judge to bypass the constitutional stop-pay method and collect his paycheck during periods when he was legally disqualified from receiving compensation. The Commission classified this not as an administrative oversight, as “willful misconduct”, the most serious level of judicial culpability short of removal, noting that Heryford signed these documents while fully aware of the backlog on his desk.
The Ledger of Unearned Income
Between 2022 and 2023, Judge Heryford received salary payments for at least four specific months during which he was constitutionally barred from payment. Based on the standard California Superior Court judicial salary, which exceeded $240, 000 annually ($20, 000 per month) during the relevant period, the total improper receipt is estimated at approximately $80, 000.
| Pay Period | Affidavit Date | Status of Funds | Disqualifying Case(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| August 2022 | Aug 19, 2022 | Illegal Receipt | Schneider v. Lane (Pending>90 days since Aug 4) |
| September 2022 | Sept 20, 2022 | Illegal Receipt | Schneider v. Lane; Dayton v. 299 Trinity DRF |
| October 2022 | Oct 19, 2022 | Illegal Receipt | Schneider v. Lane (Decided Nov 29, 2022) |
| September 2023 | Aug 22, 2023 | Illegal Receipt | Ammon v. Ammon (Pending>90 days as of Sept 1) |
Case Study: The Schneider Delays
The most prolonged violation occurred in Eberhard Schneider et al. v. Karla S. Lane (Case No. 19CV0090). The matter was taken under submission following a post-trial brief on May 6, 2022. Under the 90-day rule, a ruling was mandatory by August 4, 2022. Judge Heryford did not problem his decision until November 29, 2022, 117 days past the constitutional deadline.
During this four-month blackout, Heryford signed three separate affidavits (August 19, September 20, and October 19) attesting that no cases were overdue. The CJP investigation found that Heryford “was aware” the Schneider matter was pending beyond the limit when he signed these documents. By doing so, he authorized his own paycheck in direct contravention of state law.
The “Pre-Signing” Loophole
The September 2023 violation highlights a specific procedural manipulation. In the case of Erick Ammon v. Nicole Ammon, the 90-day clock was set to expire on September 1, 2023. Judge Heryford signed his salary affidavit on August 22, 2023, nine days before the deadline. While the statement was technically accurate at the moment of signing (as the case was only at day 81), the affidavit is intended to cover the pay period of the entire month.
By the time the September salary was actually disbursed, the Ammon case had crossed the 90-day threshold without a ruling. The decision was not filed until September 28, 2023, meaning the judge was in violation for nearly the entire month he had preemptively cleared himself to be paid for. The Commission rejected any defense based on the timing of the signature, noting that the purpose of the affidavit is to ensure compliance for the pay period in question.
widespread Failure vs. Personal Responsibility
Judge Heryford attempted to mitigate these findings by claiming he had implemented “new” tracking measures, such as attaching a list of submitted matters to his monthly pay affidavit. yet, CJP investigators discovered this was a misleading defense; the Trinity County Superior Court already had an internal tracking system in place that provided exactly this data. The failure was not one of software or clerical support, of personal diligence. The “new” measures were functionally identical to the existing he had already ignored.
The financial impropriety here is distinct from simple procrastination. In the private sector, a failure to deliver a product might result in a loss of revenue. In the California judicial system, the salary is guaranteed unless the judge fails to rule. By falsifying the only document standing between himself and a withheld paycheck, Judge Heryford converted a performance problem into a financial ethics violation.
“A judge who executes a salary affidavit affirming he or she has no overdue rulings should take care to ensure that the statement is true when it is made. The fact that a judge may be unaware… is not a defense to a charge of filing false salary affidavits.”
, Standard established in Inquiry Concerning Freedman (2007), by CJP in similar salary dispute cases.
The 'Safeguard' Fabrication: Misleading investigators about pre-existing court procedures
The Investigation and the “New” Protocol Deception
The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) investigation into Judge Eric L. Heryford did not uncover procedural incompetence; it exposed a deliberate attempt to mislead state investigators regarding the internal operations of the Trinity County Superior Court. When the Commission issued its preliminary investigation letter inquiring about the pattern of delayed rulings, Judge Heryford attempted to mitigate the by claiming he had taken proactive steps to prevent future violations. Specifically, he asserted to the Commission that he had implemented a “new” safeguard: the practice of attaching a list of all submitted matters to his monthly salary affidavit. This statement was false. Investigators determined that this specific protocol, attaching the case list to the pay affidavit, was not a remedial measure introduced by Heryford in response to the delays. It was, in fact, a pre-existing standard operating procedure within the Trinity County court system. The court staff routinely provided these lists to judicial officers specifically to ensure compliance with Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution. By framing a long-standing (and ignored) procedure as a corrective action, Heryford attempted to portray himself as a solution-oriented administrator. Instead, the Commission found this constituted a “absence of candor,” a serious ethical breach that escalated the severity of the disciplinary action. The existence of this pre-existing safeguard destroys the defense that the delays were the result of administrative oversight or a absence of tracking tools. The tools existed. The lists were generated. The judge simply signed the affidavits anyway, falsely attesting that no cases were overdue while the very document that proved otherwise was likely attached to or associated with the paperwork he was signing.
The “Ignorance” Defense vs. Digital Reality
Beyond the fabrication of new, Judge Heryford also attempted to defend his actions by claiming he was “unaware” that decisions were overdue until he received the Commission’s inquiry. This defense crumbled under scrutiny of the court’s case management infrastructure. The CJP’s findings detail that the Trinity County Superior Court maintains a digital tracking system that explicitly flags matters taken under submission. When a judge takes a case under submission, the court clerk enters this status into an internal queue. This queue is visible to judicial officers. The system is designed to act as a fail-safe, providing a real-time dashboard of pending rulings and their statutory deadlines. For Heryford to claim ignorance of the delays, he would have had to systematically ignore both the digital case management queue and the physical lists provided by staff. The Commission rejected his claim of unawareness, noting that the information was readily available and that his failure to access it did not excuse the misconduct.
Case Study: The Failure of the “Safeguard” in Schneider v. Lane
The hollowness of Heryford’s claims about safeguards is most clear in the handling of Eberhard Schneider et al. v. Karla S. Lane (Case No. 19CV0090). This matter provides a clear timeline showing that the judge was not “unaware” actively bypassed the checkpoints designed to stop him. The Schneider case was taken under submission following a post-trial brief filed on May 6, 2022. Under California law, the 90-day clock began ticking immediately. The deadline for a decision was August 4, 2022.
| Date | Event | Status of “Safeguard” |
|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2022 | Schneider case submitted. | Entered into tracking queue. |
| August 4, 2022 | 90-day statutory deadline expires. | Case is overdue. Salary should stop. |
| August 19, 2022 | Heryford signs salary affidavit. | IGNORED. Attests no cases pending>90 days. |
| September 20, 2022 | Heryford signs salary affidavit. | IGNORED. Attests no cases pending>90 days. |
| October 19, 2022 | Heryford signs salary affidavit. | IGNORED. Attests no cases pending>90 days. |
| November 29, 2022 | Decision issued. | 117 days overdue. |
In this instance, the “safeguard”, the list of submitted matters, would have shown Schneider as pending since May. Yet, Heryford signed affidavits in August, September, and October, collecting his salary illegally for three consecutive months. His later claim to investigators that he would “start” attaching lists to prevent this was a deflection; the information was already there, and he had already ignored it three times in a single case.
The Ammon gap and the September Salary
A similar pattern emerged in Erick Ammon v. Nicole Ammon (Case No. 20CV123). A motion to strike demurrer was taken under submission on June 21, 2022. The 90-day deadline method in late September. On August 23, 2023, Heryford signed his salary affidavit for the upcoming pay period. Technically, on the day he signed, the case was not yet overdue. Yet, the 90-day threshold was crossed before the day of September, the month for which he was receiving payment. The Commission noted that while the affidavit might have been technically accurate at the moment of signature regarding the 90-day mark, the payment for September was improper because the case became overdue immediately after. More damning was the 2023 recurrence. In a separate instance involving the Ammon case timeline (or a similar matter referenced in the 2023 affidavit cluster), the judge signed an affidavit on August 22, 2023, stating no cause was pending for ninety days prior to September 1. By September 1, the matter had been pending for more than 90 days. The CJP found that he “improperly received salary for the month of September 2023.” The recurrence of these errors in 2023, after the 2022 violations, demonstrates that even if Heryford had implemented new safeguards as he claimed, they were ineffective. The “new” protocol he touted to investigators was functionally identical to the old protocol he had already violated.
absence of Candor as an Aggravating Factor
The Commission’s decision to impose a public censure—the harshest penalty short of removal—was heavily influenced by the “absence of candor.” In judicial discipline, honesty during an investigation is paramount. A judge who admits to administrative failures may receive a private admonishment or a lower level of discipline. A judge who attempts to deceive the Commission regarding those failures faces significantly higher. By misrepresenting the court’s procedures, Heryford transformed a case about laziness and disorganization into a case about integrity. The CJP’s order explicitly stated that his conduct constituted “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.” The fabrication of the “safeguard” narrative suggested that Heryford was more concerned with managing the optics of the investigation than with addressing the root cause of the delays: his own failure to do the work. The “safeguard” lie also casts doubt on the judge’s attention to detail in other areas. If a judge cannot accurately describe the procedures of his own courtroom to state investigators, or if he is to invent procedures to excuse his conduct, the reliability of his other judicial functions comes into question. The Commission’s findings show a jurist who not only failed to uphold the constitution also failed to be honest about why.
Digital Evidence: Trinity County Superior Court Case Management System logs proving knowledge of delays
The Digital Audit Trail: Trinity County Case Management System Logs
The October 21, 2025, censure of Judge Eric L. Heryford by the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) relied heavily on digital forensics extracted from the Trinity County Superior Court’s internal network. While Judge Heryford initially claimed he was unaware of the extent of his backlog, the court’s own electronic Case Management System (CMS) provided an irrefutable timeline of negligence. These digital logs demonstrated that the delays were not administrative oversights conscious disregards of the 90-day ruling mandate codified in Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution.
The CJP investigation revealed that the court’s CMS automatically tracked the status of every matter taken “under submission.” This system generated precise “submitted lists” which were routinely printed and delivered to judges. These logs served as the primary evidence contradicting Heryford’s defense. The data showed that between 2020 and 2024, the system flagged 20 separate matters as overdue, yet the judge continued to sign sworn affidavits claiming his docket was clear. The existence of these automated alerts proves that the information required to comply with the law was readily available on his judicial dashboard.
Forensic Timeline of Delayed Rulings
The Commission’s analysis of the CMS data specific cases where the digital timestamp of the “submission” entry and the eventual “ruling” entry exceeded statutory limits. The following table details the most egregious delays identified in the 2025 censure order, comparing the legal deadline against the actual date of decision.
| Case Name & Number | Submission Date (CMS Log) | Ruling Date | Days Pending | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schneider v. Lane (19CV0090) | May 06, 2022 | Nov 29, 2022 | 207 Days | VIOLATION |
| Dayton v. Trinity DRF (20CV123) | June 21, 2022 | Sept 21, 2022 | 92 Days | VIOLATION |
| Ammon v. Ammon | June 02, 2023 | Sept 28, 2023 | 118 Days | VIOLATION |
| Habeas Corpus Petition A | [Redacted by CJP] | [Redacted] | 114 Days | VIOLATION (Limit 60) |
| Admin Appeal B | [Redacted by CJP] | [Redacted] | 203 Days | VIOLATION |
widespread Notifications vs. Judicial Denial
The investigation dismantled Judge Heryford’s defense regarding his awareness of these timelines. During the inquiry, Heryford suggested he had “taken steps” to prevent future delays by ensuring a list of submitted matters was attached to his monthly pay affidavit. The CJP found this statement misleading. Court staff interviews and system logs confirmed that this practice was already standard operating procedure at the Trinity County Superior Court during the period of misconduct. The clerk’s office routinely generated these reports from the CMS and physically or digitally attached them to the affidavits before the judge signed them.
This gap indicates that Heryford did not forget about the cases; he ignored the very tools designed to remind him. The “submitted list” is a standard report in California judicial administration, derived directly from the case management database. It lists every case where a motion has been argued or a trial concluded, starting the 90-day clock. By signing the affidavits while these lists were attached, Heryford created a documentary paradox: the attachment showed cases were overdue, while his signature on the affidavit swore they were not.
The Salary Affidavit gap
Under California Government Code Section 68210, judges must sign an affidavit to receive their monthly salary, certifying that no cause remains pending and undetermined for 90 days. The digital evidence proves Heryford signed these documents falsely on multiple occasions. In 2022 alone, he signed affidavits in August, September, and October while the Schneider case sat unresolved on the system logs. He received his salary for those months illegally. In August 2023, he signed another affidavit just days before the Ammon case crossed the 90-day threshold, collecting his September salary even with the case becoming overdue on September 1.
The CJP noted that the system for tracking matters was “in effect” and “visible to judicial officers.” The judge’s failure to utilize this data constituted a “conscious disregard” of his administrative duties. The logs provide a binary truth: the cases were open, the clock was ticking, and the system knew it. Heryford’s signature on the affidavits stands in direct opposition to the objective reality recorded in the court’s own database.
Ethical Violations: Breaches of Judicial Canons 1, 2A, and 3B(8) requiring prompt adjudication
Violations of Canon 3B(8): The Duty to Dispose Promptly
The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) centered its October 21, 2025, censure order on Judge Eric L. Heryford’s repeated failure to adhere to Canon 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Ethics. This canon mandates that a judge “dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and.” The Commission’s investigation confirmed that between 2020 and 2024, Judge Heryford neglected this duty in 20 separate matters. These delays were not incidents represented a widespread breakdown in case management within the Trinity County Superior Court under his oversight.
The delays spanned multiple litigation types. The CJP report identifies 12 general jurisdiction cases where decisions were issued between 91 and 207 days after submission. The judge also failed to act on three administrative appeals for periods ranging from 169 to 203 days. Habeas corpus petitions, which demand urgent attention to protect personal liberty, were also stalled. Five such petitions remained undecided for 77 to 114 days. These timelines far exceed the 60-day requirement for habeas rulings and the 90-day constitutional limit for submitted matters.
Table: Selected Case Delays in Censure
| Case Name | Case Number | Submission Date | Decision Date | Days Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eberhard Schneider et al. v. Karla S. Lane | 19CV0090 | May 6, 2022 | Nov 29, 2022 | 207 Days |
| Samuel Jefferson Dayton v. 299 Trinity DRF | 20CV123 | June 21, 2022 | Sept 21, 2022 | 92 Days |
| Master Extracts, Inc. v. AGI., et al. | 20CV0074 | April 26, 2022 | Aug 12, 2022 | 108 Days |
| Erick Ammon v. Nicole Ammon | [Redacted] | May 2023 | Sept 28, 2023 | 118 Days |
Breaches of Canons 1 and 2A: Integrity and Public Confidence
The Commission determined that Judge Heryford’s conduct extended beyond mere administrative into ethical violations regarding honesty and integrity. Canon 1 requires a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon 2A requires a judge to respect and comply with the law and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Heryford violated these canons by executing false salary affidavits under penalty of perjury.
California law prohibits judges from receiving their salary if a cause remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after submission. To release their paychecks, judges must sign a monthly affidavit attesting to their compliance with this rule. The CJP found that Judge Heryford signed false affidavits in August, September, and October 2022, and again in August 2023. By signing these documents while aware, or constructively aware through court tracking systems, that cases like Schneider and Dayton were overdue, he subordinated his ethical obligations to his financial interests.
Constitutional and Statutory Non-Compliance
The censure explicitly links these ethical breaches to violations of state law. Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution states that a judge “may not receive the salary for the judicial office held by the judge while any cause before the judge remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision.” Government Code section 68210 reinforces this by requiring the affidavit as a condition of payment. Heryford’s acceptance of salary payments for August, September, and October 2022, and September 2023, constituted a direct violation of these provisions. The Commission noted that the judge improperly received public funds during months when he was legally disqualified from payment due to his backlog.
absence of Candor with the Commission
Aggravating the ethical violations was Judge Heryford’s response to the investigation. The CJP noted a “absence of candor” regarding his case management practices. In a letter received by the Commission on October 28, 2024, Heryford claimed he had “taken steps” to prevent future delays by attaching a list of submitted matters to his pay affidavit. The investigation revealed this statement was misleading. The practice of attaching such lists was already in place at the Trinity County Superior Court and was not a new remedial measure initiated by the judge. This attempt to portray existing clerical procedures as proactive reform further violated the duty to cooperate honestly with disciplinary bodies.
“By knowingly signing false statements and improperly receiving judicial salary, Judge Heryford’s conduct constituted a conscious disregard of the limits of judicial authority, and amounted to willful misconduct.” , California Commission on Judicial Performance, Decision and Order, October 21, 2025.
Legal Classification: Findings of willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
Legal Classification: Willful Misconduct and Prejudicial Actions
The Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) grounded its October 21, 2025, censure order on two distinct legal classifications: willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. These findings represent a severe indictment of Judge Eric L. Heryford’s adherence to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and the state Constitution. The Commission determined that Judge Heryford’s actions went beyond mere administrative negligence, crossing into the territory of bad faith and conscious disregard for the law.
Willful Misconduct: The False Affidavits
The most serious finding against Judge Heryford involves the execution of false government documents. The Commission classified his signing of inaccurate salary affidavits as willful misconduct, the gravest form of judicial discipline short of removal. Under California law, willful misconduct requires a finding of “unjudicial conduct” committed in bad faith. The CJP concluded that Judge Heryford acted with a “conscious disregard of the limits of judicial authority” when he attested under penalty of perjury that no causes remained pending for more than 90 days, even while he knew, or should have known, that multiple decisions were overdue. Between August 2022 and September 2023, Judge Heryford signed these affidavits to release his paycheck, directly violating Government Code Section 68210. This statute prohibits a judge from receiving a salary while a cause remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after submission. By signing these documents, Judge Heryford bypassed the statutory salary freeze intended to compel timely rulings. The Commission noted that he improperly received salary payments for August, September, and October 2022, and again for September 2023, based on these falsified records. This act was not a passive error; it was an affirmative step to secure financial compensation in violation of the law.
Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice: The Delays
The Commission classified the pattern of delayed rulings as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. This legal standard applies to conduct that would appear to an objective observer to be unjudicial and harmful to the public esteem of the judiciary. The investigation confirmed that Judge Heryford failed to problem timely decisions in 20 separate matters between 2020 and 2024. These delays were not minor clerical slips. In 12 cases, decisions arrived between 91 and 207 days after the matter was taken under submission. In three administrative appeals, Judge Heryford failed to act for periods ranging from 169 to 203 days. also, he neglected to rule on five petitions for writs of habeas corpus within the mandated timeframe, leaving petitioners waiting between 77 and 114 days for a ruling that state rules require within 60 days. The CJP found that this “persistent failure to perform judicial duties” eroded public confidence in the Trinity County Superior Court.
Constitutional and Statutory Violations
The disciplinary order details specific violations of the California Constitution and state statutes. The legal framework governing these violations is rigid, designed to guarantee that litigants receive timely justice.
| Legal Authority | Requirement | Judge Heryford’s Violation | CJP Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cal. Const. Art. VI, § 19 | Judges may not receive salary if a cause remains pending>90 days. | Received salary for 4 months while cases were overdue. | Willful Misconduct |
| Gov. Code § 68210 | Must sign affidavit stating no cause is pending>90 days to get paid. | Signed affidavits under penalty of perjury knowing cases were overdue. | Willful Misconduct |
| Canon 3B(8) | Dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and. | Delayed 20 matters; longest delay reached 207 days. | Prejudicial Conduct |
| Cal. Rules of Court | Habeas corpus petitions must be resolved within 60 days. | Delayed 5 habeas petitions for up to 114 days. | Prejudicial Conduct |
Deception and Absence of Candor
Aggravating the legal classification was the Commission’s finding that Judge Heryford engaged in deceptive conduct during the investigation. When questioned about the delays, Judge Heryford claimed he had implemented “new” safeguards, such as attaching a list of submitted matters to his monthly pay affidavit, to prevent future errors. The investigation revealed this assertion was misleading; the Trinity County Superior Court already had these systems in place, and Judge Heryford had simply failed to use them. The Commission viewed this “absence of candor” as a significant factor in elevating the discipline to a public censure. A judge’s duty to be honest extends to their interactions with the disciplinary body. By attempting to minimize his culpability through misleading statements about court procedures, Judge Heryford demonstrated a failure to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, reinforcing the finding of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The “Bad Faith” Determination
The distinction between negligence and willful misconduct frequently hinges on “bad faith.” In this matter, the CJP found that Judge Heryford’s execution of the affidavits was not a mistake born of a disorganized docket. The Trinity County court clerk provided lists of submitted matters to judges specifically to track these deadlines. Judge Heryford had access to these internal tracking queues. By ignoring these tools and signing the affidavits anyway, he acted with a purpose that served his own financial interest (receiving his salary) over his judicial duties. This alignment of “unjudicial conduct” with a self-serving motive satisfied the legal requirement for bad faith, justifying the severe sanction of public censure rather than a private admonishment. The October 21 decree stands as a permanent record that the judge prioritized his paycheck over the constitutional rights of litigants to a timely decision.
The Stipulation: Judge Heryford's admission of guilt and acceptance of maximum public censure
The Mechanics of the Stipulation
The stipulation serves as a binding plea agreement. In this document, Judge Heryford agreed that the facts recited by the Commission were true and correct. He further agreed that his conduct violated the Code of Judicial Ethics and the California Constitution. The agreement precluded any future contestation of the findings. Specifically, the judge waived his rights to: * Formal proceedings under Commission Rule 118. * The presentation of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. * Review by the California Supreme Court under Rule 9. 60. This waiver finalized the disciplinary action immediately upon the Commission’s acceptance. The CJP voted to accept the stipulation on October 8, 2025, and issued the public order on October 21.
Admitted Factual Findings
Judge Heryford’s admission covered three distinct categories of misconduct. The stipulation details these failures with granular precision, preventing any ambiguity regarding the scope of his dereliction.
1. Pattern of Delayed Decisions
The judge admitted to violating Canon 3B(8), which requires judges to dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and. The stipulation lists 20 separate matters between 2020 and 2024 where he failed to problem rulings within the mandatory 90-day window.
| Case Category | Number of Matters | Delay Duration (Days Past Submission) |
|---|---|---|
| General Civil / Motions | 12 | 91 to 207 days |
| Administrative Appeals | 3 | 169 to 203 days |
| Habeas Corpus Petitions | 5 | 77 to 114 days |
| Habeas petitions have a stricter 60-day requirement under California Rules of Court. |
In the stipulation, Judge Heryford acknowledged that these delays occurred even with the existence of an internal court tracking system designed to alert judges of method deadlines.
2. False Salary Affidavits
The most serious admission involved the violation of California Government Code Section 68210. Judge Heryford admitted to signing government documents under penalty of perjury which stated that no cause remained pending and undetermined for 90 days. The stipulation identifies specific months where he signed these affidavits while knowing cases were overdue: * August 2022: Signed affidavit even with pending overdue matters. * September 2022: Signed affidavit even with pending overdue matters. * October 2022: Signed affidavit even with pending overdue matters. * August 2023: Signed affidavit on August 22, declaring no matters would be overdue as of September 1, yet failed to rule on the Ammon case until September 28, 2023 (118 days post-submission). By signing these false affidavits, Judge Heryford improperly received his judicial salary for those months. The stipulation characterizes this not as an administrative error, as a “conscious disregard of the limits of judicial authority.”
3. absence of Candor
The third prong of the admission involved his interaction with the Commission investigators. Judge Heryford admitted to making misleading statements during the preliminary investigation. He initially claimed he had implemented new measures to prevent delays, such as attaching a list of submitted matters to his monthly pay affidavit. The investigation revealed, and Heryford later stipulated, that this practice was already in place during the period of his misconduct. His attempt to frame existing as new corrective actions constituted a breach of the duty to cooperate candidly with disciplinary agencies.
Legal Conclusions and Constitutional Violations
The stipulation affirms that Judge Heryford’s conduct violated Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution. This section explicitly prohibits a judge from receiving a salary while a cause remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after submission. The Commission’s order, based on the stipulation, concluded that his actions constituted: * Willful Misconduct: The highest level of judicial misconduct, attributed to the knowing execution of false affidavits. * Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice: A serious finding that the judge’s behavior brought the judicial office into disrepute. * Persistent Failure to Perform Judicial Duties: Evidenced by the four-year pattern of delayed rulings.
Mitigation and Aggravation
The stipulation outlines the factors that led to a public censure rather than removal from the bench. While the misconduct was severe, the Commission noted that Judge Heryford had no prior disciplinary history since his appointment in 2018. He also eventually admitted to the misconduct and entered into the stipulation, which saved the Commission the resources required for a full formal proceeding. Yet, the aggravating factors were substantial. The “absence of candor” regarding the tracking system weighed heavily against him. The Commission has long held that honesty during an investigation is a primary requirement for a judge. The stipulation reflects that his initial misleading responses escalated the severity of the sanction to the maximum public censure.
The Final Order
The Commission’s vote to accept the stipulation was decisive. Ten members voted in favor of the censure, including Chairperson Judge Lisa B. Lench. The order mandates that the censure be published, serving as a permanent mark on Judge Heryford’s record.
“Judge Heryford’s conduct constituted, at a minimum, persistent failure to perform judicial duties and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. By knowingly signing false statements and improperly receiving judicial salary, Judge Heryford’s conduct constituted a conscious disregard of the limits of judicial authority, and amounted to willful misconduct.”
This text, included in the final order, encapsulates the of the stipulation. Judge Heryford remains on the bench, he does so under the weight of a public finding that he committed willful misconduct and violated the state Constitution. The stipulation closes the case, leaving no avenue for appeal or retraction.
