The commission has concluded that there is not clear and convincing evidence of bias, abuse of authority, or other basis to conclude that Judge Persky engaged in judicial misconduct warranting discipline.

First, the sentence was within the parameters set by law and was therefore within the judge’s discretion.

Second, the judge performed a multi-factor balancing assessment prescribed by law that took into account both the victim and the defendant.

Third, the judge’s sentence was consistent with the recommendation in the probation report, the purpose of which is to fairly and completely evaluate various factors and provide the judge with a recommended sentence.

Fourth, comparison to other cases handled by Judge Persky that were publicly identified does not support a finding of bias. The judge did not preside over the plea or sentencing in one of the cases. In each of the four other cases, Judge Persky’s sentencing

decision was either the result of a negotiated agreement between the prosecution and the defense, aligned with the recommendation of the probation department, or both.

Fifth, the judge’s contacts with Stanford University are insufficient to require disclosure or disqualification.