_{Former Del Norte County Superior Court Judge Robert Cochran received a public reprimand from the California Commission on Judicial Performance for making demeaning comments to a domestic violence victim. | Photo by Paul Critz}

A retired Del Norte County judge received a public reprimand from the California Commission on Judicial Performance for making demeaning comments to a domestic violence victim during hearings in 2023.

The commission found that former Del Norte County Superior Court Judge Robert Cochran “conveyed the appearance of embroilment and bias and exhibited discourtesy” toward the victim at a domestic violence restraining order hearing in May 2023 and later at a change of plea hearing in October 2023 after her partner was convicted for his actions.

The Commission on Judicial Performance concluded that Cochran’s treatment of the victim “constituted serious misconduct,” according to its decision and order imposing public admonishment published Wednesday. Cochran, the commission stated, “did not appear to fully appreciate the impropriety of his comments.”

Those statements included faulting the victim for staying in an abusive relationship, calling her manipulative several times and telling her former partner that he had “fallen into her ‘trap’.”

Cochran also violated Marsy’s Law, also known as the California Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, because he denied her the opportunity to influence his decision to accept her alleged abuser’s plea agreement, according to the CJP.

Cochran appeared before the commission with his attorney Randall A. Miller on Jan. 30 to contest a tentative public admonishment issued Oct. 31, 2024. Cochran served as a Del Norte County judge from January 2019 through January 2025, deciding against seeking re-election in California’s March 2024 primary.

The CJP is an independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct, judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges.

The CJP’s public admonishment of Cochran was signed by Chair Dr. Michael A. Moodian.

According to the CJP’s public admonishment, Cochran presided over a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) hearing in May 2023. The victim testified that her partner had assaulted her hundreds of times, often in front of the children in their home, and provided the court with photographs of injuries that included bloody head wounds, black eyes, strangulation bruising and a bloody split lip.

The victim testified that while she contributed toward household expenses, her partner and his father often threatened to kick her out of the house. Because her partner and his father were allegedly taking her money each month and threatening to kick her out, she decided to move out.

In response to the victim’s statement, Cochran said that while economic coercion is an element of domestic violence, “you look like somebody had just been beating the crap out of you.”

The victim’s partner admitted to causing the wounds, giving her the black eyes and choking her. He said that the victim had forced him to enter therapy, stating that “if he did not do what she told him to do, she would say, ‘you’re going to have to deal with your consequences again,’” according to the CJP’s decision.

While he questioned the victim’s partner, Cochran said he didn’t understand why she would stay in a relationship “where someone is just beating the crap out of her all the time.” However, the judge said the victim’s “problem” didn’t justify the defendant’s behavior.

“That’s — you can’t — you can’t beat somebody up because — because they’re a manipulator or taking advantage of you,” Cochran said. “You just can’t do it.”

Cochran granted the victim a three-year DVRO based on her pictures. But he didn’t require her former partner to attend a batterer’s program, according to the CJP’s order. He also told her alleged abuser that he should be “thankful that she’s found someone else” and that she “let you go.”

Cochran also told the victim she was setting a bad example for her children, saying that she’s telling her daughter that “women are second-class citizens. If they get beat up, it’s their fault or whatever.”

Cochran also mentioned the victim’s sons, saying that they’ll learn that “men beat up on women.”

Following the DVRO hearing in May, the victim’s partner was convicted on domestic violence charges.

In his response to the Commission on Judicial Performance’s preliminary investigation letter, Cochran argued that while his comments at the DVRO hearing were “unartful,” he wanted to impress upon the victim the dangers of modeling “unhealthy relationships” to her children.

However, the commission concluded that the judge’s comments were gratuitous, irrelevant to determining whether to grant a restraining order and reflected “offensive and outdated stereotypes and beliefs regarding victims of domestic violence.”

The commission also concluded that Cochran questioned the victim’s credibility and appeared to blame her for the abuse she suffered by asking why she didn’t leave the relationship and stating she had a “problem” for staying.

Cochran said he was paraphrasing the defendant’s testimony when he called the victim a “manipulator,” though the defendant never used the word manipulate, according to the CJP’s order.

The judge also said that he had questions regarding the victim’s credibility unrelated to her allegations of physical abuse. He described her as “an extraordinarily difficult individual” and said her conduct during the hearing contributed to his belief of her overall believability.

However, the commission concluded that even if Cochran questioned the victim’s credibility on other issues, “it did not excuse his improper comments.”

In October, Cochran presided over a change of plea hearing in connection with the victim’s former partner. He agreed to plead no contest to felony domestic violence charges in exchange for probation and credit for time served with no additional time in custody. According to the CJP’s order, the defendant served one day in custody.

During the hearing, Cochran asked the prosecutor to provide a factual basis for the plea. When the victim asked to be heard following the prosecutor’s statement, Cochran referred her to the probation department.

The probation department prepared a report recommending the defendant serve six months in custody. However, in December, Cochran did not order him to serve additional time in custody. The victim prepared a written statement objecting to Cochran’s sentence.

According to the CJP’s order, Marsy’s Law provides victims due process by affording them an opportunity to be heard in criminal proceedings. The law states that victims have the right to be treated with fairness and respect for their privacy and dignity and to be heard, upon request, at any proceeding.

In addition to stating that Cochran denied the victim the opportunity to influence his decision regarding the plea agreement, the CJP’s order states that he violated Marsy’s Law by failing to treat her with dignity, respect, courtesy and sensitivity.

In his objection, Cochran admitted his mistake in denying the victim the right to testify at the plea hearing. But he said his ruling was a legal error.

The commission disagreed.

“The commission concluded that denying [the victim] an opportunity to be heard, upon request, at a plea hearing, clearly and convincingly reflected a disregard for [her] fundamental rights,” the CJP’s decision stated.

According to the decision, nine commission members out of a total of 10 voted to impose the public admonishment. One member, attorney Rickey Ivie, did not participate in the proceedings. One public member position of the Commission on Judicial Performance was vacant.