California Penal Code §92 — Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee
PC §92 punishes any person who gives or offers a bribe to a judge, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire with corrupt intent to influence a judicial decision or verdict. The offense is a straight felony: 2, 3, or 4 years state prison, plus fines and permanent disqualification from public office. Contempt of court and PC §138 witness-bribery charges are frequently filed alongside §92. Federal parallel charges under 18 U.S.C. §201 (bribery of federal judicial officers) apply where a federal proceeding is targeted.
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney · Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee Cases in All LA County Courts
01 — Quick Facts
PC §92 — Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee at a Glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Full Name | California Penal Code §92 — Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee |
| Code Type | Penal Code (PC) |
| Classification | Felony |
| Penalty | 2, 3, or 4 years state prison + up to $10,000 fine |
| Public Office | Permanent disqualification from holding public office in California |
| Moral Turpitude | Yes — CIMT / crime of dishonesty |
| Strike | No |
| Probation | Available but rare — court disfavors probation on public-corruption felonies |
| Immigration | Deportable and inadmissible for non-citizens under 8 USC §1227(a)(2)(A)(i) |
| Restitution | Full disgorgement of bribe + government losses |
| Free Consultation | (213) 723-2337 — 24/7 |
01 — What Is PC §92?
What Is California Penal Code §92?
PC §92 Reads:
"Every person who gives or offers to give a bribe to any judicial officer, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire, or to any person who may be authorized by law to hear or determine any question or controversy, with intent to influence his vote, opinion, or decision upon any matter or question which is or may be brought before him for decision, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years."
— California Penal Code §92
PC §92 criminalizes offering a bribe to a judicial decision-maker — a superior court judge, appellate justice, commissioner, magistrate, referee, arbitrator, umpire, or juror. It also reaches persons 'authorized by law to hear or determine any question or controversy,' capturing quasi-judicial officers such as administrative law judges and hearing officers. The paired accepting statute is PC §93. Jury tampering under PC §95 and obstruction of justice under PC §137 are common companion charges.
The Bribery Chain Under California Law
California's public-corruption statutes are paired: for every 'offering' statute (§67 executive officers, §85 legislators, §92 judges/jurors, §165 supervisors) there is a matching 'accepting' statute (§68, §86, §93). Both sides face the same 2/3/4-year exposure, permanent office bar, and CIMT immigration consequences. Rubin Law defends both sides of the transaction.
PC §92 — Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee
Offering side. Punishes anyone who gives or offers a bribe to a judge, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire with corrupt intent to influence a judicial decision or verdict.
PC §641.3 — Commercial Bribery
Private-sector counterpart. Wobbler above $1,000 — misdemeanor / felony optional.
Why §92 Matters Beyond the Sentence
PC §92 is one of California's most severely punished corruption offenses because it strikes at the integrity of the judicial system itself. Trial courts routinely impose upper-term sentences on §92 convictions given the systemic harm. The offense is a CIMT and dishonesty offense — automatic State Bar discipline (typically disbarment) for any attorney convicted, mandatory disclosure to all licensing boards, and deportation exposure with aggravated-felony risk. Rubin Law's defense strategy attacks the specific corrupt-intent element and the required nexus to a pending proceeding.
Official Sources
02 — Elements of the Crime
Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under PC §92
To convict under PC §92, the prosecution must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Offer, Gift, or Promise to a judicial officer, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire
The prosecution must prove the defendant gave, offered, or promised money, property, appointment, gratuity, service, or 'anything of value' to the target official.
Corrupt Intent
The defendant must have acted with corrupt intent — the specific intent to influence the official's vote, opinion, or official action. Mere goodwill, gratitude, or general political support is insufficient.
Recipient's Official Status
The recipient must have been a qualifying official at the time — as defined by the statute. Retirees, former officials, and private-sector recipients fall outside this statute (though may be covered by §641.3 commercial bribery).
Nexus to Official Action
The payment must have been connected to the exercise of the official's duties — voting, deciding, testifying, or exercising discretion. Payments unrelated to official conduct fall outside the statute.
04 — Penalties
Penalties for PC §92 Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee in California
PC §92 penalties are structured as follows.
| Charge | Code | Prison Term | Probation | Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee | PC §92 | 2, 3, or 4 years state prison | Available but disfavored | No |
| Fine | PC §92 | Up to $10,000 or the amount of the bribe (whichever is greater) | Fine additional to custody | N/A |
| Public Office Bar | Cal. Const. art. VII §8 | Permanent disqualification from state or local public office | Collateral consequence | N/A |
| Restitution & Disgorgement | PC §1202.4 | Full value of bribe + government losses | Mandatory | N/A |
Related Enhancements & Charges
Aggravated Loss
PC §186.11
Aggregate takings above $500,000 in a pattern of related felony conduct add 2, 3, or 5 years — commonly filed with public-corruption cases.
Conspiracy
PC §182
Two or more persons agreeing to commit bribery — filed as felony conspiracy with the same 2/3/4-year exposure.
Money Laundering
PC §186.10
Where bribe proceeds moved through banking transactions — parallel felony filing with additional 1–4 year enhancements.
Beyond the Sentence
- Permanent bar from holding California public office (Cal. Const. art. VII §8)
- Federal parallel charges under 18 U.S.C. §201, §666, §1341, §1343
- Public arrest record and criminal-history rap sheet exposure
- Professional license revocation (State Bar, DRE, CBA, medical boards) — CIMT / dishonesty triggers
- Immigration consequences for non-citizens — deportable and inadmissible
- Employment background-check disclosure — CIMT tag closes most licensed and fiduciary roles
Sentencing References
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends PC §92 Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of PC §92 and drives outcomes that avoid conviction where possible.
No Corrupt Intent
The statute requires a specific corrupt intent — an intent to influence the officer's official action. Campaign contributions, political support, and ordinary lobbying activities without a quid-pro-quo do not meet this element. McCormick v. United States (1991) and People v. Diedrich (1982) frame the analysis under California law.
PC §7 / McCormick
No Quid Pro Quo — No Agreement
§92 requires an actual or implied agreement that the payment influence official conduct. Gratuities delivered without an agreement, and payments for unrelated services, fall outside the statute.
People v. Gliksman
Entrapment / Government Overreach
Undercover sting operations that induce a public official to accept an improper payment they otherwise would not have accepted support an entrapment defense under People v. Barraza (1979).
PC §1181 / Barraza
Attack the Undercover Recording
Most public-corruption cases are built on wiretaps, consensual recordings, and body wires. Rubin Law litigates PC §632 / Title III challenges, chain-of-custody, and interpreter-integrity attacks on the audio evidence.
PC §632 / 18 U.S.C. §2510
Legitimate Payment / Reimbursement
Payments for actual services rendered, reimbursement of expenses, or lawful compensation under an existing contract are not bribes. Documentation of legitimate purpose is often dispositive.
PC §92
First Amendment Petitioning
Political contributions and constituent advocacy fall under Noerr-Pennington and First Amendment protection unless a specific quid pro quo is proved. This is a substantial constitutional defense in campaign-donation cases.
First Amendment
Cooperation & Sentence Mitigation
In multi-defendant investigations, PC §1192.7 and federal 5K1.1 cooperation can substantially reduce exposure — but must be carefully structured to avoid additional charges. Rubin Law negotiates immunized proffers before any statement.
PC §1192.7
Constitutional Sources
07 — Court Process
How PC §92 Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee Cases Move Through Los Angeles Courts
PC §92 cases proceed through the following stages in Los Angeles County courts and, where jurisdiction attaches, in federal court.
- 1
Step 1 — Investigation
Most §92 cases originate with the FBI, DA Public Integrity Division, State Attorney General, or Political Reform Act audits. Investigations often involve wiretaps, consensual recordings, and cooperating witnesses. Do not give voluntary statements — the target is almost always recorded in advance.
- 2
Step 2 — Filing / Arraignment
Felony filings begin in the criminal courthouse for the county where the conduct occurred. Bail depends on flight risk, position held, and evidence weight. Public officials are frequently released on their own recognizance with reporting conditions.
- 3
Step 3 — Discovery & Recording Forensics
Wiretap transcripts, body-wire audio, financial records, and email/text metadata drive the case. Rubin Law engages audio-forensic experts to challenge transcription accuracy and interpretation of ambiguous statements.
- 4
Step 4 — Preliminary Hearing
The People must show a strong suspicion of each element — including the specific corrupt-intent element. Defense often litigates the quid-pro-quo element at prelim to secure dismissal of counts or reduce to a lesser included.
- 5
Step 5 — Motion Practice
PC §995 motions to dismiss, PC §1538.5 suppression of wiretap and recording evidence, PC §1054 discovery motions on cooperator benefits, and Pitchess motions on investigating agents.
- 6
Los Angeles Courts That Handle PC §92 Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee Cases
PC §92 cases are filed in the courthouse serving the location of the conduct.
Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
Central LA — public-corruption cases assigned to complex-litigation calendar.
Van Nuys Courthouse East
San Fernando Valley filings involving city and county officials.
Airport Courthouse
West LA / LAX area filings.
Long Beach Courthouse
South Bay filings, harbor commission cases, and Port of Long Beach conduct.
Pomona Courthouse South
Eastern LA County filings involving inland municipal officials.
Reviewed by Your Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin — Los Angeles Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee Defense Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin has defended clients charged with bribery of judge, juror, or referee and related offenses in Los Angeles County courts — including Clara Shortridge Foltz, Van Nuys, Compton, and Pomona. He understands that these cases are won in the details: the suppression hearing that eliminates key evidence, the preliminary hearing cross-examination that exposes a weak witness, the penalty phase argument that keeps a client out of the worst outcome.
This page was written and reviewed by Daniel A. Rubin, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, CA State Bar 302093, with 10+ years of experience defending clients charged under PC §92 in Los Angeles County. Last reviewed: July 2026.
CA Bar 302093 | Whittier Law School | Rising Star — Super Lawyers 2019–2023 | Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee Cases Throughout LA County
See our full Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee defense practice
09 — FAQs
PC §92 Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee Questions — Los Angeles
What is 'bribery' under PC §92?
Bribery under PC §92 is the corrupt offering or giving of any thing of value to a California judge, juror, referee, arbitrator, or umpire, with the specific intent to influence official action. California courts require an explicit or implicit quid-pro-quo agreement — mere political goodwill or general lobbying is insufficient.
Is PC §92 a felony?
Yes. PC §92 is a straight felony — no wobbler treatment. Penalty is 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison plus a fine up to $10,000 (or the amount of the bribe, whichever is greater). California Constitution art. VII §8 imposes permanent disqualification from holding any public office in California upon conviction.
Is a §92 conviction deportable?
Yes. PC §92 is a crime involving moral turpitude and a crime of dishonesty — deportable under 8 USC §1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and inadmissible under 8 USC §1182(a)(2)(A). Aggravated-felony treatment is possible where the loss exceeds $10,000 (8 USC §1101(a)(43)(D)/(M)). Immigration counsel should be involved from the earliest stage.
What is the difference between offering and accepting a bribe?
California pairs each 'offering' statute with a matching 'accepting' statute: PC §67 (offering executive) ↔ §68 (accepting executive); §85 (offering legislator) ↔ §86 (accepting legislator); §92 (offering judge/juror) ↔ §93 (accepting judge/juror). Both sides face the same 2/3/4-year exposure and the same permanent public-office bar.
Can a campaign contribution be prosecuted as bribery?
Only if the prosecution proves a specific quid-pro-quo agreement. McCormick v. United States (1991) requires an explicit or implicit understanding that the payment will influence a specific official act. Ordinary campaign contributions, absent that agreement, are protected First Amendment activity. This is the most contested legal issue in modern public-corruption cases.
What are federal parallel charges?
Federal prosecutors routinely charge parallel counts under 18 U.S.C. §201 (bribery of federal officials), §666 (theft/bribery in federal-funded programs), §1341 (mail fraud), and §1343 (wire fraud). Federal Sentencing Guidelines §2C1.1 governs. Rubin Law coordinates state-federal defense to avoid successive prosecution and Petite policy pitfalls.
Is diversion available for §92?
No. PC §92 is a straight felony and is not eligible for judicial diversion under PC §1001.95 (misdemeanors only) or mental health diversion under PC §1001.36 (excluded for public-corruption offenses). The realistic paths to a non-CIMT outcome are (i) preliminary-hearing dismissal, (ii) reduction to a non-CIMT alternative (PC §424 misappropriation, PC §115 false filing), or (iii) trial acquittal.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Accused of Bribery of Judge, Juror, or Referee Under PC §92?
PC §92 targets the integrity of the judicial system — expect aggressive prosecution, upper-term sentencing, and automatic professional-licensing consequences. Rubin Law, P.C. defends attorneys, litigants, and business principals accused of judicial or jury bribery.