Judge Carringer’s behavior began with seemingly minor procedural irregularities that, left unchallenged, evolved into serious ethical breaches. What started as occasional interventions in matters outside her proper authority soon developed into a systematic pattern of overreach. Like many cases of institutional corruption, the progression was gradual but steady.
Initially, these actions might have appeared as administrative overstepping, perhaps even rationalized as efforts to address case backlogs or management issues. However, without proper correction or oversight, these small transgressions became normalized and eventually escalated.
Soon, Judge Carringer reportedly established direct communications with local law enforcement about cases, effectively creating court orders through these conversations. When attorneys attempted to challenge these improper interventions, they found themselves in an impossible position, being told to “take that up with the court” when Carringer herself was the court in question.
Expanding Authority Without Accountability
As time progressed without consequences, Judge Carringer’s unauthorized interventions expanded. In 2019, she reportedly began signing orders on behalf of retired Judge Garry Ichikawa, creating a deeply problematic situation where she implemented the wishes of someone no longer on the bench. These actions completely circumvented the proper judicial assignment system that ensures cases are heard by sitting judges.
The lack of institutional response to these early violations appears to have emboldened further overreach. Without proper oversight from judicial review boards or intervention from appellate courts, what began as procedural irregularities evolved into a system where one judge could effectively operate outside the established structure with impunity.
Sentencing Without Authority
Perhaps the most serious inflection point came when Judge Carringer allegedly involved herself in contempt proceedings and sentencing matters outside her department. She reportedly signed sentencing orders in cases where she had heard none of the evidence, a fundamental violation of due process. This represented a dangerous expansion of her self appointed authority from administrative matters into decisions directly affecting individual liberty.
The fact that these orders were sometimes issued without notification to the affected parties or their attorneys compounded the problem. Citizens found themselves subject to judicial orders they never knew existed, creating a situation where their freedom could be at risk without their knowledge or opportunity to object.
The Failure of Oversight Systems
What makes this situation particularly troubling is how completely the systems designed to prevent such abuses failed to function. How people failed to take action. When people talk about “institutional corruption” sometimes we treat organizations as robotic entities, when they’re operated by people who repeatedly turn a blind eye to wrongdoing.
The Corruption of Process
The most insidious aspect of this form of judicial corruption is how it corrupts the process itself. When a judge can make decisions without proper jurisdiction, sign orders without notification to parties, and operate outside departmental boundaries, the entire framework of procedural justice breaks down.
This creates a system where justice depends not on law but on chance. Only those fortunate enough to discover these irregular proceedings and with resources to challenge them have any hope of remedy. The rest remain subject to decisions made in the shadows, without their knowledge or consent.
The Acceleration of Misconduct
The trajectory of Judge Carringer’s alleged actions shows how judicial misconduct, left unchecked, tends to accelerate over time. What began with improper interventions evolved into ex parte communications with law enforcement, then unauthorized sentencing orders, creating a progressively more serious pattern of misconduct.
This acceleration occurs precisely because early interventions are critical. When minor procedural violations go unaddressed, they establish precedents that normalize increasingly serious misconduct. Each unchallenged overreach becomes the foundation for the next, more significant violation.
Only through vigilant oversight and prompt intervention can we ensure that judges remain within their proper authority and that justice truly remains transparent, accessible, and fair for all.