Susan Bryant-Deason #
Introduction #
Susan Bryant-Deason is a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court who was publicly admonished on May 19, 2026 by the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state agency charged with investigating allegations of judicial misconduct and disciplining California judges. The commission announced that it had disciplined Bryant-Deason because she was rude and discourteous to two prospective jurors who appeared to possess insufficient knowledge of the English language to serve on a jury, and that her misconduct included telling one prospective juror, “Youâre not doing anything in our society,” and telling another, “Learn English.” The commission further concluded that her treatment of the two jurors could reasonably be perceived as reflecting bias or prejudice. The discipline drew prompt coverage from California’s legal press, which reported that the judge told the commission she had not intended to be insensitive when she questioned jurors’ abilities to read and understand English.
Background Information #
Bryant-Deason sits on the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the trial-level court that handles the bulk of California’s most populous county’s legal business, including the criminal, civil, and family matters that depend on a steady stream of residents willing to serve as jurors. The discipline in her case came from the Commission on Judicial Performance, an independent state body headquartered in San Francisco that oversees the conduct of judges across California’s court system. The commission is composed of six public members, three judges, and two lawyers, and its chairperson is Hon. Lisa B. Lench; both Lench and commission member Rickey Ivie were recused from the Bryant-Deason matter. In the proceeding, Bryant-Deason was represented by Randall A. Miller and Timothy W. Bucknell of the Los Angeles firm Miller Waxler LLP. The commission’s press release did not state how long she had served on the bench.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation #
Discipline and findings. The public admonishment is a formal act of judicial discipline based on the commission’s own findings â not a criminal judgment and not a removal from office. The commission found conduct that could reasonably be perceived as reflecting bias or prejudice; it did not announce a finding that Bryant-Deason is actually biased. The press release did not state that she admitted or contested the findings, and she told the commission she had not intended to be insensitive.
According to the commission’s May 19, 2026 announcement, the matter arose from Bryant-Deason’s treatment of two prospective jurors who appeared to lack sufficient knowledge of English to serve on a jury. The commission determined that she was rude and discourteous to both, and that her misconduct included saying to one prospective juror, “Youâre not doing anything in our society,” and telling another, “Learn English.” The commission concluded that this treatment could reasonably be perceived as reflecting bias or prejudice, and that those findings warranted the public admonishment it issued. For her part, Bryant-Deason told the commission she “did not intend to be insensitive” when she questioned the jurors’ abilities to read and understand English.
Public Reaction and Consequences #
The commission published the admonishment document on its website under both “Pending Cases â Press Releases & Documents” and “Public Discipline & Decisions,” making it a permanent and freely searchable public record. The Recorder, the Los Angeles legal newspaper published by Law.com, covered the discipline the same day under the headline “L.A. Judge Disciplined for Telling Potential Juror to ‘Learn English’,” and its account led with the judge’s position that she had not meant to be insensitive. For a sitting judge, the consequence is significant even though it stops short of suspension or removal: a public admonishment is formal discipline from the very body charged with policing the bench, issued not in private but in a press release bearing the judge’s name and the exact words she used. Jurors occupy a distinctive position in the court system â ordinary citizens compelled to appear and serve â so judicial conduct toward them carries an added weight that the commission expressly recognized in finding the treatment of the two prospective jurors potentially perceived as biased.
Current Status #
Bryant-Deason remains a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The public admonishment issued May 19, 2026 stands as the commission’s disposition of the matter; it neither removes her from the bench nor strips her of her judicial duties. The admonishment remains publicly available on the commission’s website, and no further discipline in the matter was announced. Her stated explanation â that she did not intend to be insensitive when questioning the jurors’ English abilities â remains her position on the record, as reported by Law.com.
Impact on Their Career/Life #
The admonishment leaves Bryant-Deason with a permanent, public disciplinary entry â the kind of record that follows a judge for the remainder of a career and surfaces whenever her name is searched, since the commission’s public discipline documents are posted online indefinitely. Her words to the two prospective jurors are now quoted verbatim in the commission’s own announcement, fixing “Youâre not doing anything in our society” and “Learn English” to her public profile. At the same time, the outcome is bounded: the commission chose public admonishment rather than more severe sanctions, meaning she keeps her judgeship, and the record reflects her account that the remarks were not intended as they could be perceived. The case stands as a documented example of judicial discipline for conduct toward non-English-speaking Californians in the courthouse â a reminder that how judges speak to the residents summoned for jury duty is itself a matter the state is prepared to formally punish.