| .. |
| San Diego Education Report |
Boycotting of judges nothing new to DA
At least three others targeted since 2003
By Greg Moran
SDUT
Feb. 28, 2010
When District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis quietly lifted a months-old challenge of
Superior Court Judge John Einhorn late last month, it seemed that an uncommon
event — the wholesale boycott of a veteran judge’s courtroom — had come to an end.
But Einhorn was not the first judge to have been singled out for such treatment by
Dumanis.
Since 2003, prosecutors have targeted at least three other Superior Court
judges for whole or partial boycotts.
Sources in the courthouse,
the local defense bar and
the District Attorney’s Office said
all three were targeted
shortly after they made
rulings that the District Attorney’s
Office apparently disagreed with.
Two of those judges, Judith Hayes
and William McAdam, no longer
work in the criminal courts.
Boycotting a judge is seen by some as ham-handed attempt to intimidate or even bully
judges. It is done by using a peremptory challenge — a legal move available to
prosecutors and defense lawyers — to block a new case from going to a particular
judge. A specific reason does not have to be given. The challenge can also be used in
a limited form, such as only on serious felony cases.
In an interview Friday, Dumanis and her top deputy, Jesse Rodriguez, said the
decision to challenge is not based only on one decision by a
judge, and is done only after lengthy consideration.
The two, both former Superior Court judges, declined to discuss any specific
judge who has been challenged or the reasons behind any such effort. But
they said they use the challenge sparingly, unlike defense lawyers, who they
said issue peremptory challenges far more often.
Hayes was boycotted just months after Dumanis took office in 2003. The
former state and federal prosecutor now hears civil cases in downtown San
Diego.
She was challenged soon after dismissing murder charges in the middle of a
trial against Michael Savala, who was accused of fatally shooting two
bouncers at a Bonita restaurant after the prosecution had presented its case.
Hayes said the slayings were not premeditated murder but were committed in
the heat of passion — “a classic voluntary manslaughter,” as she said.
Savala eventually pleaded guilty to that lesser charge and received a 13-year
sentence.
McAdam hears family-law cases in Chula Vista. He was appointed to the bench in
2003, and was targeted about 18 months ago, when prosecutors decided they would
no longer allow him to hear a certain kind of serious felony case.
In an interview, the judge said he believed it was because he reduced a sentence in a
case from a potential life term to 14 years.
The third judge, Gale Kaneshiro, still works in the criminal courts but hears mostly
misdemeanor cases. She heard serious felony cases until about three years ago.
At that time, according to sources on the bench and the District Attorney’s Office,
prosecutors were opposed to allowing cases to settle for plea agreements outside the
court’s main criminal supervising department. Some judges, including Kaneshiro,
wanted the ability to settle cases that are assigned to them for trial from that
supervising department.
At one point, Kaneshiro ordered Dumanis to come to her courtroom and explain why a
certain case was not being allowed to settle, according to sources on the bench and in
the prosecutor’s office. She did, but shortly afterward, Kaneshiro was under a
challenge. It has since been lifted.
Kaneshiro declined several requests for an interview. Hayes did not respond
to similar requests.
McAdam said he was never formally told that he was under a partial boycott, but
believed it was because of the sentence reduction.
“It was my understanding that they had me under challenge for any ‘life top’ cases,” the
judge said, using criminal-court shorthand for cases in which a defendant faces a
potential sentence of life in prison.
McAdam said at the time that he was getting ready to “transition to family law,” an
assignment that he finds satisfying.
Dumanis, in her first extended interview about the issue since news of the Einhorn
challenge surfaced in November, said the goal of a challenge is not to punish or bully a
particular judge.
“We do it to protect our case — to make sure that the victims, the witnesses, the
families get a fair trial,” she said.
But because of Dumanis’ political clout and the influence prosecutors can have in a
judicial election, it is not seen that way by the bench, said one veteran public defender,
who asked not to be identified so as not to potentially harm his clients.
“It is intimidating,” the lawyer said. “And they don’t like it — at all. They are tired of this.”
David Steinberg, a professor of criminal law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San
Diego, said repeated boycotts of judges are risky, no matter how long they last. He
said it could create issues a defendant might raise on appeal, perhaps arguing that his
due-process rights were violated.
Moreover, boycotting a particular judge inadvertently taints other judges, Steinberg
said.
“With a judge being blocked, the question is: Why?” he said. “It creates all sorts of
speculation. Why does the DA want to be in front of Judge B instead of Judge A? It
really casts questions about the fairness of all judges.”
Dumanis declined to get into specific reasons for challenges, saying the law does not
compel a party to give one. She also said challenges are done quietly, so as not to
embarrass or harm a judge in the public mind.
Dumanis added that complaints of bullying or intimidation are never raised when
defense lawyers file challenges.
There are differences, however. The longtime public defender said his office allows
individual lawyers to challenge judges. But the office does not allow total boycotts of a
judge by all lawyers.
And Dumanis acknowledged that a standing challenge against a judge from
prosecutors has a different impact from one by defense lawyers. “With that difference,
we exercise a much more cautious, respectful, considered decision when we do it,” she
said.
Dumanis said her predecessors challenged judges more frequently that she has, and
that the tactic is a normal part of the criminal justice system. But several veteran
judges, who did not want to be identified so they could preserve their relationship with
the District Attorney’s Office, said Dumanis has deployed the tactic more often, and
that sometimes the targeted judge is the last to know. Einhorn, for example, said he
was not told why he was challenged.
“Sometimes they call; sometimes they don’t,” said a judge with more than two decades
on the bench. “They let it be known they are going to be challenging cases going to
that judge.”
Sometimes, the supervising judge who makes assignments will send cases to a
challenged judge, forcing the District Attorney’s Office to use its one peremptory
challenge. But often, the judge is not given new cases, avoiding the need to formally
file a challenge, until the boycott is lifted or the judge receives a new assignment.
At least three others targeted since 2003
By Greg Moran
SDUT
Feb. 28, 2010
When District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis quietly lifted a months-old challenge of
Superior Court Judge John Einhorn late last month, it seemed that an uncommon
event — the wholesale boycott of a veteran judge’s courtroom — had come to an end.
But Einhorn was not the first judge to have been singled out for such treatment by
Dumanis.
Since 2003, prosecutors have targeted at least three other Superior Court
judges for whole or partial boycotts.
Sources in the courthouse,
the local defense bar and
the District Attorney’s Office said
all three were targeted
shortly after they made
rulings that the District Attorney’s
Office apparently disagreed with.
Two of those judges, Judith Hayes
and William McAdam, no longer
work in the criminal courts.
Boycotting a judge is seen by some as ham-handed attempt to intimidate or even bully
judges. It is done by using a peremptory challenge — a legal move available to
prosecutors and defense lawyers — to block a new case from going to a particular
judge. A specific reason does not have to be given. The challenge can also be used in
a limited form, such as only on serious felony cases.
In an interview Friday, Dumanis and her top deputy, Jesse Rodriguez, said the
decision to challenge is not based only on one decision by a
judge, and is done only after lengthy consideration.
The two, both former Superior Court judges, declined to discuss any specific
judge who has been challenged or the reasons behind any such effort. But
they said they use the challenge sparingly, unlike defense lawyers, who they
said issue peremptory challenges far more often.
Hayes was boycotted just months after Dumanis took office in 2003. The
former state and federal prosecutor now hears civil cases in downtown San
Diego.
She was challenged soon after dismissing murder charges in the middle of a
trial against Michael Savala, who was accused of fatally shooting two
bouncers at a Bonita restaurant after the prosecution had presented its case.
Hayes said the slayings were not premeditated murder but were committed in
the heat of passion — “a classic voluntary manslaughter,” as she said.
Savala eventually pleaded guilty to that lesser charge and received a 13-year
sentence.
McAdam hears family-law cases in Chula Vista. He was appointed to the bench in
2003, and was targeted about 18 months ago, when prosecutors decided they would
no longer allow him to hear a certain kind of serious felony case.
In an interview, the judge said he believed it was because he reduced a sentence in a
case from a potential life term to 14 years.
The third judge, Gale Kaneshiro, still works in the criminal courts but hears mostly
misdemeanor cases. She heard serious felony cases until about three years ago.
At that time, according to sources on the bench and the District Attorney’s Office,
prosecutors were opposed to allowing cases to settle for plea agreements outside the
court’s main criminal supervising department. Some judges, including Kaneshiro,
wanted the ability to settle cases that are assigned to them for trial from that
supervising department.
At one point, Kaneshiro ordered Dumanis to come to her courtroom and explain why a
certain case was not being allowed to settle, according to sources on the bench and in
the prosecutor’s office. She did, but shortly afterward, Kaneshiro was under a
challenge. It has since been lifted.
Kaneshiro declined several requests for an interview. Hayes did not respond
to similar requests.
McAdam said he was never formally told that he was under a partial boycott, but
believed it was because of the sentence reduction.
“It was my understanding that they had me under challenge for any ‘life top’ cases,” the
judge said, using criminal-court shorthand for cases in which a defendant faces a
potential sentence of life in prison.
McAdam said at the time that he was getting ready to “transition to family law,” an
assignment that he finds satisfying.
Dumanis, in her first extended interview about the issue since news of the Einhorn
challenge surfaced in November, said the goal of a challenge is not to punish or bully a
particular judge.
“We do it to protect our case — to make sure that the victims, the witnesses, the
families get a fair trial,” she said.
But because of Dumanis’ political clout and the influence prosecutors can have in a
judicial election, it is not seen that way by the bench, said one veteran public defender,
who asked not to be identified so as not to potentially harm his clients.
“It is intimidating,” the lawyer said. “And they don’t like it — at all. They are tired of this.”
David Steinberg, a professor of criminal law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San
Diego, said repeated boycotts of judges are risky, no matter how long they last. He
said it could create issues a defendant might raise on appeal, perhaps arguing that his
due-process rights were violated.
Moreover, boycotting a particular judge inadvertently taints other judges, Steinberg
said.
“With a judge being blocked, the question is: Why?” he said. “It creates all sorts of
speculation. Why does the DA want to be in front of Judge B instead of Judge A? It
really casts questions about the fairness of all judges.”
Dumanis declined to get into specific reasons for challenges, saying the law does not
compel a party to give one. She also said challenges are done quietly, so as not to
embarrass or harm a judge in the public mind.
Dumanis added that complaints of bullying or intimidation are never raised when
defense lawyers file challenges.
There are differences, however. The longtime public defender said his office allows
individual lawyers to challenge judges. But the office does not allow total boycotts of a
judge by all lawyers.
And Dumanis acknowledged that a standing challenge against a judge from
prosecutors has a different impact from one by defense lawyers. “With that difference,
we exercise a much more cautious, respectful, considered decision when we do it,” she
said.
Dumanis said her predecessors challenged judges more frequently that she has, and
that the tactic is a normal part of the criminal justice system. But several veteran
judges, who did not want to be identified so they could preserve their relationship with
the District Attorney’s Office, said Dumanis has deployed the tactic more often, and
that sometimes the targeted judge is the last to know. Einhorn, for example, said he
was not told why he was challenged.
“Sometimes they call; sometimes they don’t,” said a judge with more than two decades
on the bench. “They let it be known they are going to be challenging cases going to
that judge.”
Sometimes, the supervising judge who makes assignments will send cases to a
challenged judge, forcing the District Attorney’s Office to use its one peremptory
challenge. But often, the judge is not given new cases, avoiding the need to formally
file a challenge, until the boycott is lifted or the judge receives a new assignment.
Harry L. Powazek and
Joel R. Wohlfeil of San Diego
Gary M. Bubis of El Cajon
Maureen F. Hallahan of La Mesa
San Diego Metropolitan Magazine
Daily Business Report
April 17, 2007
...Four local attorneys have been appointed to the San Diego County Superior Court bench by
Gov. Schwarzenegger -- Powazek, 52, has served as a commissioner for the San Diego County
Superior Court since 1995. From 1985 to 1995, he was in private practice handling family law.
Powazek earned a doctorate degree from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a
bachelor's degree from State University of New York at Buffalo. He fills the vacancy created by
the death of Judge J. Michael Bollman. Powazek is registered decline-to-state.
Wohlfeil, 51, has been a partner with the law firm Boudreau, Albert & Wohlfeil since 1997.
Previously, he was in private practice specializing in civil litigation from 1996 to 1997, and an
associate with the law firm of Bauman & Wohlfeil from 1991 to 1996. Wohlfeil earned a
doctorate from Western State University College of Law and a bachelor's degree from Northern
Arizona University. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Raymond Edwards Jr.
Wohlfeil is a Democrat.
Bubis, 53, has served as referee for the San Diego Superior Court since 1997. Previously, he
was a deputy public defender for the San Diego County Public Defender's Office from 1992 to
1996 and a deputy for the San Diego county counsel from 1990 to 1992. From 1980 to 1990, he
was a partner with Menzies and Bubis. Bubis earned a doctorate from the USD School of Law,
a master's degree from CSU San Diego and a bachelor's degree from Northern Illinois
University. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Rafael Arreola. Bubis is a
Republican.
Hallahan, 52, has been a practicing attorney since 1981 and was a partner with the law firm
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch. Previously, she was an associate and partner with the
law firm Mulvaney, Kahan & Barry and held the same position with Miller, Boyko & Bell.
Hallahan earned a doctorage from the USD School of Law and a bachelor's degree from
SDSU. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Charles Wickersham. Hallahan
is a Democrat.
The pay for each position is $171,648 annually.
Joel R. Wohlfeil of San Diego
Gary M. Bubis of El Cajon
Maureen F. Hallahan of La Mesa
San Diego Metropolitan Magazine
Daily Business Report
April 17, 2007
...Four local attorneys have been appointed to the San Diego County Superior Court bench by
Gov. Schwarzenegger -- Powazek, 52, has served as a commissioner for the San Diego County
Superior Court since 1995. From 1985 to 1995, he was in private practice handling family law.
Powazek earned a doctorate degree from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a
bachelor's degree from State University of New York at Buffalo. He fills the vacancy created by
the death of Judge J. Michael Bollman. Powazek is registered decline-to-state.
Wohlfeil, 51, has been a partner with the law firm Boudreau, Albert & Wohlfeil since 1997.
Previously, he was in private practice specializing in civil litigation from 1996 to 1997, and an
associate with the law firm of Bauman & Wohlfeil from 1991 to 1996. Wohlfeil earned a
doctorate from Western State University College of Law and a bachelor's degree from Northern
Arizona University. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Raymond Edwards Jr.
Wohlfeil is a Democrat.
Bubis, 53, has served as referee for the San Diego Superior Court since 1997. Previously, he
was a deputy public defender for the San Diego County Public Defender's Office from 1992 to
1996 and a deputy for the San Diego county counsel from 1990 to 1992. From 1980 to 1990, he
was a partner with Menzies and Bubis. Bubis earned a doctorate from the USD School of Law,
a master's degree from CSU San Diego and a bachelor's degree from Northern Illinois
University. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Rafael Arreola. Bubis is a
Republican.
Hallahan, 52, has been a practicing attorney since 1981 and was a partner with the law firm
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch. Previously, she was an associate and partner with the
law firm Mulvaney, Kahan & Barry and held the same position with Miller, Boyko & Bell.
Hallahan earned a doctorage from the USD School of Law and a bachelor's degree from
SDSU. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Charles Wickersham. Hallahan
is a Democrat.
The pay for each position is $171,648 annually.
Judge Wohlfiel previously in the news:
San Diego Business Journal
2/6/2006
Sycuan Wins Suit Over Management of Hotel Law:
Renovation of Historic Grant Hotel Sees Climbing
Costs
By CONNIE LEWIS
Attorneys for San Diego-based American Property Management Corp. contend
that they will appeal a jury’s verdict that awarded Sycuan Development Corp.
nearly $1.4 million after Sycuan fired the firm as manager of the U.S. Grant Hotel.
The case, which went to trial Jan. 6 in San Diego Superior Court, was based on
which entity had violated the terms of a 10-year management contract for the
historic 271-room hotel when the management company was fired in February
2004.
Sycuan, which acquired the storied hotel and hired American Property in
December 2003, said American Property Management was fired for cause and
sued it for $2.8 million in damages. The alleged causes included late payment of
property insurance and employees’ dental insurance premiums and transferring
money from one bank account to another without authorization.
American Property Management countersued Sycuan, alleging that the tribe
violated its contract by not giving prior notice or a set period of time to rectify
those problems before being fired and sought $10.8 million — the balance of
what it said it was owed for the remainder of the contract term.
The decision, which was rendered Jan. 26, awarded Sycuan $1.386 million,
including $1.35 million that the jury said American Property Management
wrongly took after it was fired. The sum also included about $30,000 for
meals and hotel stays for some employees who were family members of
American Property Management President Michael Gallegos and an
additional $5,500 for meals and a hotel stay for a nephew of Gallegos.
Attorney Joel R. Wohlfeil of the San Diego-based law firm Boudreau Albert
& Wohlfeil LLP, which represented American Property Management, said it
plans to file an appeal based on the court’s pretrial decision that Sycuan did not
owe the management company prior notice or a chance to rectify problems before
it was fired.
Anthony Dain of Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP represented
Sycuan.
San Diego Business Journal
2/6/2006
Sycuan Wins Suit Over Management of Hotel Law:
Renovation of Historic Grant Hotel Sees Climbing
Costs
By CONNIE LEWIS
Attorneys for San Diego-based American Property Management Corp. contend
that they will appeal a jury’s verdict that awarded Sycuan Development Corp.
nearly $1.4 million after Sycuan fired the firm as manager of the U.S. Grant Hotel.
The case, which went to trial Jan. 6 in San Diego Superior Court, was based on
which entity had violated the terms of a 10-year management contract for the
historic 271-room hotel when the management company was fired in February
2004.
Sycuan, which acquired the storied hotel and hired American Property in
December 2003, said American Property Management was fired for cause and
sued it for $2.8 million in damages. The alleged causes included late payment of
property insurance and employees’ dental insurance premiums and transferring
money from one bank account to another without authorization.
American Property Management countersued Sycuan, alleging that the tribe
violated its contract by not giving prior notice or a set period of time to rectify
those problems before being fired and sought $10.8 million — the balance of
what it said it was owed for the remainder of the contract term.
The decision, which was rendered Jan. 26, awarded Sycuan $1.386 million,
including $1.35 million that the jury said American Property Management
wrongly took after it was fired. The sum also included about $30,000 for
meals and hotel stays for some employees who were family members of
American Property Management President Michael Gallegos and an
additional $5,500 for meals and a hotel stay for a nephew of Gallegos.
Attorney Joel R. Wohlfeil of the San Diego-based law firm Boudreau Albert
& Wohlfeil LLP, which represented American Property Management, said it
plans to file an appeal based on the court’s pretrial decision that Sycuan did not
owe the management company prior notice or a chance to rectify problems before
it was fired.
Anthony Dain of Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP represented
Sycuan.
San Diego County Judges
Michael Anello, Judge Who Expressed Concern over Daniel Shinoff
conflict of interest in MiraCosta College Investigation, appointed to
Federal Bench
conflict of interest in MiraCosta College Investigation, appointed to
Federal Bench
Senate confirms Anello to local federal bench
UNION-TRIBUNE
September 27, 2008
FEDERAL COURTS: The U.S. Senate yesterday confirmed San Diego Superior Court Judge
Michael Anello as the newest member of the local federal bench.
It's unclear when Anello will take the seat vacated when U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones
retired from full-time work.
Anello, 65, is presiding over a sexual harassment trial involving San Diego firefighters who were
ordered to participate in last year's gay pride parade. He told lawyers to wrap up their cases by
Wednesday.
He becomes one of 15 district judges in San Diego at a time when prosecutions for border
crimes are on the rise.
Anello was one of 10 federal judges confirmed by the Senate yesterday to lifetime appointments.
Congress is expected to recess until November once it approves a deal on the economic crisis
and rarely votes on judges after presidential elections, said University of Richmond professor
Carl Tobias, who follows nominations.
–O.R.S.
UNION-TRIBUNE
September 27, 2008
FEDERAL COURTS: The U.S. Senate yesterday confirmed San Diego Superior Court Judge
Michael Anello as the newest member of the local federal bench.
It's unclear when Anello will take the seat vacated when U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones
retired from full-time work.
Anello, 65, is presiding over a sexual harassment trial involving San Diego firefighters who were
ordered to participate in last year's gay pride parade. He told lawyers to wrap up their cases by
Wednesday.
He becomes one of 15 district judges in San Diego at a time when prosecutions for border
crimes are on the rise.
Anello was one of 10 federal judges confirmed by the Senate yesterday to lifetime appointments.
Congress is expected to recess until November once it approves a deal on the economic crisis
and rarely votes on judges after presidential elections, said University of Richmond professor
Carl Tobias, who follows nominations.
–O.R.S.
By North County Times
January 22, 2009
REGION: Two judges appointed to Superior Court
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed two judges to San Diego County
Superior Court, officials announced Thursday.
Two Democrats, Tamila Impema, 52, of Oceanside, and Ronald Frazier, 54, of
San Diego, will fill openings left by judges who resigned or retired.
Impema has worked most recently as a commissioner for the San Diego County
Superior Court, officials said. Prior to that, she was a commissioner and a
supervising research attorney for the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
She fills a vacancy created by Judge Jan Goldsmith, who retired in the fall after
being elected San Diego's City Attorney.
Frazier has practiced law with various San Diego law firms over 25 years, according
to state officials. Most recently he was counsel for Dietz, Gilmor & Associates in San
Diego.
He fills a vacancy created by the resignation of Judge Michael M. Anello,
who was confirmed last fall as a federal judge in San Diego's U.S. District
Court.
Both judges will be paid an annual salary of $178,789.
January 22, 2009
REGION: Two judges appointed to Superior Court
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed two judges to San Diego County
Superior Court, officials announced Thursday.
Two Democrats, Tamila Impema, 52, of Oceanside, and Ronald Frazier, 54, of
San Diego, will fill openings left by judges who resigned or retired.
Impema has worked most recently as a commissioner for the San Diego County
Superior Court, officials said. Prior to that, she was a commissioner and a
supervising research attorney for the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
She fills a vacancy created by Judge Jan Goldsmith, who retired in the fall after
being elected San Diego's City Attorney.
Frazier has practiced law with various San Diego law firms over 25 years, according
to state officials. Most recently he was counsel for Dietz, Gilmor & Associates in San
Diego.
He fills a vacancy created by the resignation of Judge Michael M. Anello,
who was confirmed last fall as a federal judge in San Diego's U.S. District
Court.
Both judges will be paid an annual salary of $178,789.
Can judges clean up the legal profession? I don't think so.
by Maura Larkins
The legal system tries to make the best of the lawyers sent to it by the California
Bar Association.
And doesn't the problem lie largely with elected officials? If they keep hiring the
same type of lawyer to represent public entities, it's hard for the court system to
fight back.
Legal culture seems to foster an arms race, with dishonesty being the weapon of
choice.
by Maura Larkins
The legal system tries to make the best of the lawyers sent to it by the California
Bar Association.
And doesn't the problem lie largely with elected officials? If they keep hiring the
same type of lawyer to represent public entities, it's hard for the court system to
fight back.
Legal culture seems to foster an arms race, with dishonesty being the weapon of
choice.
New judges Frank Devaney and
Timothy Taylor
from the office of California Governor
01/24/2005 GAAS:29:05
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Governor Schwarzenegger Appoints Two Judges to the San Diego County
Superior Court
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the appointment of
Francis “Frank” M. Devaney and Timothy B. Taylor to judgeships in the San
Diego County Superior Court.
Devaney, 50, of San Diego, has served in the San Diego City Attorney’s
office for more than 21 years. He began as a deputy city attorney in the Criminal
Division in 1983. He then moved to the Civil Litigation Division where he handled
defense of personal injury complaints, writs and appeals. In 2001, Devaney became
head deputy city attorney in the Trial Unit of the Civil Division where he managed the
selection, training, supervision and mentoring of 25 deputy city attorneys. Devaney
has also served as a workshop leader for the San Diego Inn of Court trial practice
and evidence workshop programs since 1994 and currently serves as a Master of
the Enright Inn of Court.
Devaney earned a Juris Doctorate from Santa Clara University School of
Law and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Hobart College...
He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Vincent P. DiFiglia.
Devaney is registered decline-to-state.
Taylor, 45, of Coronado, has practiced law with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, LLC for the past 20 years specializing in civil litigation. He became a
partner in the firm’s Trial Practice Group in 1992. Taylor’s experience also includes
service on the State Bar Commission on Access to Justice and three years as the
lawyer representative from the Southern District of California to the Ninth Circuit
Judicial Conference.
Taylor earned a Juris Doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center and a
Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Southern California. He is a member
of the San Diego County Bar Association and the California State Bar Association.
He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Eugene M. Amos. Taylor is
registered decline-to-state.
The compensation for each position is $139,784.
Timothy Taylor
from the office of California Governor
01/24/2005 GAAS:29:05
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Governor Schwarzenegger Appoints Two Judges to the San Diego County
Superior Court
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the appointment of
Francis “Frank” M. Devaney and Timothy B. Taylor to judgeships in the San
Diego County Superior Court.
Devaney, 50, of San Diego, has served in the San Diego City Attorney’s
office for more than 21 years. He began as a deputy city attorney in the Criminal
Division in 1983. He then moved to the Civil Litigation Division where he handled
defense of personal injury complaints, writs and appeals. In 2001, Devaney became
head deputy city attorney in the Trial Unit of the Civil Division where he managed the
selection, training, supervision and mentoring of 25 deputy city attorneys. Devaney
has also served as a workshop leader for the San Diego Inn of Court trial practice
and evidence workshop programs since 1994 and currently serves as a Master of
the Enright Inn of Court.
Devaney earned a Juris Doctorate from Santa Clara University School of
Law and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Hobart College...
He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Vincent P. DiFiglia.
Devaney is registered decline-to-state.
Taylor, 45, of Coronado, has practiced law with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, LLC for the past 20 years specializing in civil litigation. He became a
partner in the firm’s Trial Practice Group in 1992. Taylor’s experience also includes
service on the State Bar Commission on Access to Justice and three years as the
lawyer representative from the Southern District of California to the Ninth Circuit
Judicial Conference.
Taylor earned a Juris Doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center and a
Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Southern California. He is a member
of the San Diego County Bar Association and the California State Bar Association.
He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Eugene M. Amos. Taylor is
registered decline-to-state.
The compensation for each position is $139,784.
The Secret World of
Judicial
Appointments
By WILL CARLESS
Voice of San Diego
Feb. 13, 2008
On Oct. 17, William Gentry, Jr., a
local prosecutor with the
District Attorney's Office,
announced he was running for
election as city attorney against
the incumbent Democrat, Mike
Aguirre. Gentry had the support
of District Attorney Bonnie
Dumanis, who wrote a gushing
letter to local lawyers urging
them to back him in the race.
"I'm in this to win and 100
percent committed to it," Gentry
told The San Diego
Union-Tribune the day he
entered the race.
But three months later, despite
raising more money than any
other candidate, Gentry
suddenly dropped out of the
race. After a fellow Republican,
Superior Court Judge Jan
Goldsmith, decided to run
against Aguirre, Gentry said he
didn't want to split the vote
against Aguirre and urged his
supporters to vote for Goldsmith.
A week later, Gentry
had a new gig. He was
appointed as a
Superior Court judge
by Republican Gov.
Arnold
Schwarzenegger.
The move raised eyebrows
in the local legal and
political communities, with
many pontificating that
Gentry's appointment was
a trade-off for dropping out
of the race against Aguirre
and clearing the way for
Goldsmith.
And a number of local
attorneys, who spoke
anonymously because they
could appear in front of
Judge Gentry, questioned
whether the former district
attorney was the best
qualified of several local
lawyers sitting on a waiting
list for Superior Court
judgeships.
But the screening and
appointment process
undergone by Gentry, and
all other prospective
judges, is shrouded in
secrecy, leaving details of
nominations, including the
rating given to applicants
by an independent
commission and the
number of potential rivals
for each judgeship, outside
of public view.
"We'll never ever know whether
this was an inducement to leave,"
said Steve Erie, a political
science professor at University of
California, San Diego. "But the
timing of it raises eyebrows. It's
like remarriage after a divorce.
The timing is awkward, the timing
is unseemly -- that it's occurring
so shortly afterwards."
Gentry said there's no connection
between his leaving the race and
his appointment. He said he
applied to the Governor's Office
two years ago and had long
cleared the vetting process to
become a judge when he
decided to have a stab at the city
attorney's job. The governor's
judicial appointments secretary,
Sharon Majors-Lewis, who used
to be a San Diego district attorney
herself, said Gentry was chosen
purely because of his
outstanding qualifications. Before
being appointed, Gentry joined
the San Diego District Attorney's
Office in 1998, and he is an Iraq
War veteran.
"He's absolutely got the
qualifications necessary to be a
judge, not to mention his
community service involvements
and so forth," Majors-Lewis said.
"If he didn't have the
qualifications, he could not have
been considered or appointed."
Becoming an appointed Superior
Court judge in San Diego begins
with an application to the
Governor's Office.
The Governor's Office sends
each application to a committee
in San Diego, the Judicial
Selection Advisory Committee.
The identity of the
members of that group is
secret, as is the number
of people on the
committee and the
process by which they
assess the applications
sent to them. A number of
members of the local
legal and political
communities said District
Attorney Bonnie Dumanis
is a member of the
committee, but the
Governor's Office would not
answer any questions about
the group.
After its own team has vetted the
applicants, the Governor's Office
passes applications it approves
of to an independent state Bar
commission that's tasked with
assessing the qualifications of
potential judges: The
Commission on Judicial
Nominees Evaluation, known as
the JNE Commission.
The JNE Commission, which is
made up of active members of
the state Bar, former members of
the judiciary and members of the
public, then begins an exhaustive
assessment of each candidate's
qualifications. That includes
canvassing present and former
colleagues and acquaintances of
the applicant and gathering
feedback on everything from the
aspiring judge's temperament, to
their character, to their record as
an attorney.
Those meetings take place
behind locked doors. Every
document that's viewed in the
meetings is shredded. William
Kopeny, the current chairman of
the commission, said if a
non-commission member enters
the meeting to change the air
conditioning, the meeting stops
until the non-member leaves.
And almost every single element
of the JNE Commission's
evaluation of each candidate is
strictly confidential. Releasing
information from the commission
to the media or anyone else is a
misdemeanor, Kopeny said.
Past and present commission
members said there are very
good reasons why the
information gathered on each
applicant is kept confidential. To
accurately assess each
candidate's eligibility, the
commission relies on frank and
honest feedback from people
who know that candidate well and
who may have a close
relationship to them. The
commission would not get that
sort of frank information if
journalists and members of the
public were allowed to pick
through the feedback they collate,
the commission members said.
"If participating lawyers thought
their information was going to be
vetted in public, they would be
loath to pass it on," said Diane
Karpman, a legal ethicist and
former member of the JNE
Commission.
Once the commission has
considered each candidate, it
awards them one of four ratings:
Extremely well qualified, well
qualified, qualified or not
qualified. This rating is sent to the
Governor's Office.
Theoretically, the governor can
still appoint someone who has
been rated "not qualified" by the
JNE Commission. If that
happens, the state Bar can
choose to make public the fact
that they rated the governor's
appointee as such but the
governor appointed them anyway.
But the state Bar doesn't have to
say anything.
One former commissioner said
the bar could choose to keep
quiet about an unqualified
appointee in order to protect the
governor from embarrassment.
Gentry's rating by the JNE
Commission isn't public
information. Assuming he was
considered by the commission
as qualified to be a judge, there
is no public record whether he
was rated as merely qualified, or
well qualified or extremely well
qualified.
Kopeny said Gentry, or any other
applicant's rating, can be made
public by the Governor's Office if
they chose to do so. But the
governor's officials don't have to
say anything if they don't want to.
A spokeswoman for the
Governor's Office said anything
related to the JNE Commission
is confidential, and that the office
could not release Gentry's rating.
And, in theory, the governor
doesn't have to answer to anyone
when it comes to his judicial
appointments. Because the
appointments are, by nature,
political, Kopeny said it's the
governor's prerogative to appoint
whomever he wants, whenever
he wants, for whatever reason.
"The governor's supposed to use
political considerations. That's
the reason some people vote for
him, so that he'll appoint people
who are of a like mind or that he'll
appoint people who will, in some
way, serve the political party that
he's a member of," Kopeny said.
For his part, Aguirre said there's
no doubt Gentry's judicial
appointment was made to further
the ambitions of the Republican
Party to knock him out of office.
"If any of my friends who are
Republicans want to be
appointed judges, this is the time
to announce your candidacy for
city attorney," he said.
Judicial
Appointments
By WILL CARLESS
Voice of San Diego
Feb. 13, 2008
On Oct. 17, William Gentry, Jr., a
local prosecutor with the
District Attorney's Office,
announced he was running for
election as city attorney against
the incumbent Democrat, Mike
Aguirre. Gentry had the support
of District Attorney Bonnie
Dumanis, who wrote a gushing
letter to local lawyers urging
them to back him in the race.
"I'm in this to win and 100
percent committed to it," Gentry
told The San Diego
Union-Tribune the day he
entered the race.
But three months later, despite
raising more money than any
other candidate, Gentry
suddenly dropped out of the
race. After a fellow Republican,
Superior Court Judge Jan
Goldsmith, decided to run
against Aguirre, Gentry said he
didn't want to split the vote
against Aguirre and urged his
supporters to vote for Goldsmith.
A week later, Gentry
had a new gig. He was
appointed as a
Superior Court judge
by Republican Gov.
Arnold
Schwarzenegger.
The move raised eyebrows
in the local legal and
political communities, with
many pontificating that
Gentry's appointment was
a trade-off for dropping out
of the race against Aguirre
and clearing the way for
Goldsmith.
And a number of local
attorneys, who spoke
anonymously because they
could appear in front of
Judge Gentry, questioned
whether the former district
attorney was the best
qualified of several local
lawyers sitting on a waiting
list for Superior Court
judgeships.
But the screening and
appointment process
undergone by Gentry, and
all other prospective
judges, is shrouded in
secrecy, leaving details of
nominations, including the
rating given to applicants
by an independent
commission and the
number of potential rivals
for each judgeship, outside
of public view.
"We'll never ever know whether
this was an inducement to leave,"
said Steve Erie, a political
science professor at University of
California, San Diego. "But the
timing of it raises eyebrows. It's
like remarriage after a divorce.
The timing is awkward, the timing
is unseemly -- that it's occurring
so shortly afterwards."
Gentry said there's no connection
between his leaving the race and
his appointment. He said he
applied to the Governor's Office
two years ago and had long
cleared the vetting process to
become a judge when he
decided to have a stab at the city
attorney's job. The governor's
judicial appointments secretary,
Sharon Majors-Lewis, who used
to be a San Diego district attorney
herself, said Gentry was chosen
purely because of his
outstanding qualifications. Before
being appointed, Gentry joined
the San Diego District Attorney's
Office in 1998, and he is an Iraq
War veteran.
"He's absolutely got the
qualifications necessary to be a
judge, not to mention his
community service involvements
and so forth," Majors-Lewis said.
"If he didn't have the
qualifications, he could not have
been considered or appointed."
Becoming an appointed Superior
Court judge in San Diego begins
with an application to the
Governor's Office.
The Governor's Office sends
each application to a committee
in San Diego, the Judicial
Selection Advisory Committee.
The identity of the
members of that group is
secret, as is the number
of people on the
committee and the
process by which they
assess the applications
sent to them. A number of
members of the local
legal and political
communities said District
Attorney Bonnie Dumanis
is a member of the
committee, but the
Governor's Office would not
answer any questions about
the group.
After its own team has vetted the
applicants, the Governor's Office
passes applications it approves
of to an independent state Bar
commission that's tasked with
assessing the qualifications of
potential judges: The
Commission on Judicial
Nominees Evaluation, known as
the JNE Commission.
The JNE Commission, which is
made up of active members of
the state Bar, former members of
the judiciary and members of the
public, then begins an exhaustive
assessment of each candidate's
qualifications. That includes
canvassing present and former
colleagues and acquaintances of
the applicant and gathering
feedback on everything from the
aspiring judge's temperament, to
their character, to their record as
an attorney.
Those meetings take place
behind locked doors. Every
document that's viewed in the
meetings is shredded. William
Kopeny, the current chairman of
the commission, said if a
non-commission member enters
the meeting to change the air
conditioning, the meeting stops
until the non-member leaves.
And almost every single element
of the JNE Commission's
evaluation of each candidate is
strictly confidential. Releasing
information from the commission
to the media or anyone else is a
misdemeanor, Kopeny said.
Past and present commission
members said there are very
good reasons why the
information gathered on each
applicant is kept confidential. To
accurately assess each
candidate's eligibility, the
commission relies on frank and
honest feedback from people
who know that candidate well and
who may have a close
relationship to them. The
commission would not get that
sort of frank information if
journalists and members of the
public were allowed to pick
through the feedback they collate,
the commission members said.
"If participating lawyers thought
their information was going to be
vetted in public, they would be
loath to pass it on," said Diane
Karpman, a legal ethicist and
former member of the JNE
Commission.
Once the commission has
considered each candidate, it
awards them one of four ratings:
Extremely well qualified, well
qualified, qualified or not
qualified. This rating is sent to the
Governor's Office.
Theoretically, the governor can
still appoint someone who has
been rated "not qualified" by the
JNE Commission. If that
happens, the state Bar can
choose to make public the fact
that they rated the governor's
appointee as such but the
governor appointed them anyway.
But the state Bar doesn't have to
say anything.
One former commissioner said
the bar could choose to keep
quiet about an unqualified
appointee in order to protect the
governor from embarrassment.
Gentry's rating by the JNE
Commission isn't public
information. Assuming he was
considered by the commission
as qualified to be a judge, there
is no public record whether he
was rated as merely qualified, or
well qualified or extremely well
qualified.
Kopeny said Gentry, or any other
applicant's rating, can be made
public by the Governor's Office if
they chose to do so. But the
governor's officials don't have to
say anything if they don't want to.
A spokeswoman for the
Governor's Office said anything
related to the JNE Commission
is confidential, and that the office
could not release Gentry's rating.
And, in theory, the governor
doesn't have to answer to anyone
when it comes to his judicial
appointments. Because the
appointments are, by nature,
political, Kopeny said it's the
governor's prerogative to appoint
whomever he wants, whenever
he wants, for whatever reason.
"The governor's supposed to use
political considerations. That's
the reason some people vote for
him, so that he'll appoint people
who are of a like mind or that he'll
appoint people who will, in some
way, serve the political party that
he's a member of," Kopeny said.
For his part, Aguirre said there's
no doubt Gentry's judicial
appointment was made to further
the ambitions of the Republican
Party to knock him out of office.
"If any of my friends who are
Republicans want to be
appointed judges, this is the time
to announce your candidacy for
city attorney," he said.
Judicial Appointments in San Diego
(or from San Diego)
(or from San Diego)
The San Diego Courts
have become
instruments of political
power.
05/10/07
Blog of San Diego
by Pat Flannery
Judge Wellington's arrogance (he
told our City Attorney Mike Aguirre to
sit down in court yesterday, refusing
to hear what he had to say)
demonstrates the grip an elite group
of individuals has achieved over this
city. These insiders have gained
control to an extent exceeded only by
those who seized control of our
nation's Capitol in 2000. Wellington
epitomizes the doctrine that the
Judicial Branch is a mere instrument
of political power.
As a result multiple appeals are
spilling out of San Diego. Mike
Aguirre quite rightly added the Tom
Story criminal case to that growing
list. Wellington did not like it, so he
lost his cool in court yesterday. This
cadre of insiders intended to
immediately appoint a "special"
prosecutor. Who could they have had
in mind? Casey Gwinn? Leslie
Devaney?
The rest of us can only guess at the
scope of "services" routinely provided
to the developer community by Tom
Story and his like. The special
interests Story served for 20 years is
now mobilized to send a clear
message to its current insiders e.g.
Jim Waring and Marcella
Escobar-Eck - if you faithfully do your
"duty" to the developers while on the
inside, they will protect you when you
seek your reward on the outside.
How else are we supposed to
interpret the outrageous antics of
Police Chief Lansdowne, DA Bonnie
Dumanis and Judge Wellington?
They are puppets of the
Establishment.
But Dumanis and Wellington may
have slipped up in their haste to
serve their masters. Making her
submission to Wellington BEFORE
he issued his ruling barring Aguirre
from prosecuting Story, Dumanis may
have handed Aguirre exactly what he
needs to win his appeal. As Aguirre
pointed out in court yesterday,
Dumanis' submission to Wellington
was improper and it was improper for
Wellington to read it. As a Judge he
knows that and that is why he lost his
cool yesterday. He knows it will hurt
him on appeal.
So, does Dumanis routinely do as
she is told by the Establishment, or
does she ever think first? She could
hardly have given much thought to her
untimely interference in the Story
case. Does she simply get a phone
call from Kollender or Sanders and
immediately comply? Compliance is
a highly valued virtue in San Diego
today.
It is now up to you and I, the plain
People of the State of California, to
protect our health and safety from
these developer buffoons. The
Sunroad building is a public
nuisance and a safety hazard to
those of us who fly. I do not want to
read that one of my long-time flying
friends died because of Sunroad's
greed. I did my first solo from nearby
runway 28R in 1977. Unfortunately,
like most people who fly, I have lost
very close friends to flying. It is
dangerous enough without Story's
and Wellington's ignoble
contributions.
have become
instruments of political
power.
05/10/07
Blog of San Diego
by Pat Flannery
Judge Wellington's arrogance (he
told our City Attorney Mike Aguirre to
sit down in court yesterday, refusing
to hear what he had to say)
demonstrates the grip an elite group
of individuals has achieved over this
city. These insiders have gained
control to an extent exceeded only by
those who seized control of our
nation's Capitol in 2000. Wellington
epitomizes the doctrine that the
Judicial Branch is a mere instrument
of political power.
As a result multiple appeals are
spilling out of San Diego. Mike
Aguirre quite rightly added the Tom
Story criminal case to that growing
list. Wellington did not like it, so he
lost his cool in court yesterday. This
cadre of insiders intended to
immediately appoint a "special"
prosecutor. Who could they have had
in mind? Casey Gwinn? Leslie
Devaney?
The rest of us can only guess at the
scope of "services" routinely provided
to the developer community by Tom
Story and his like. The special
interests Story served for 20 years is
now mobilized to send a clear
message to its current insiders e.g.
Jim Waring and Marcella
Escobar-Eck - if you faithfully do your
"duty" to the developers while on the
inside, they will protect you when you
seek your reward on the outside.
How else are we supposed to
interpret the outrageous antics of
Police Chief Lansdowne, DA Bonnie
Dumanis and Judge Wellington?
They are puppets of the
Establishment.
But Dumanis and Wellington may
have slipped up in their haste to
serve their masters. Making her
submission to Wellington BEFORE
he issued his ruling barring Aguirre
from prosecuting Story, Dumanis may
have handed Aguirre exactly what he
needs to win his appeal. As Aguirre
pointed out in court yesterday,
Dumanis' submission to Wellington
was improper and it was improper for
Wellington to read it. As a Judge he
knows that and that is why he lost his
cool yesterday. He knows it will hurt
him on appeal.
So, does Dumanis routinely do as
she is told by the Establishment, or
does she ever think first? She could
hardly have given much thought to her
untimely interference in the Story
case. Does she simply get a phone
call from Kollender or Sanders and
immediately comply? Compliance is
a highly valued virtue in San Diego
today.
It is now up to you and I, the plain
People of the State of California, to
protect our health and safety from
these developer buffoons. The
Sunroad building is a public
nuisance and a safety hazard to
those of us who fly. I do not want to
read that one of my long-time flying
friends died because of Sunroad's
greed. I did my first solo from nearby
runway 28R in 1977. Unfortunately,
like most people who fly, I have lost
very close friends to flying. It is
dangerous enough without Story's
and Wellington's ignoble
contributions.
More New Judges
NEWS RELEASE
SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA • COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO
Date: 6/23/2009
Superior Court
Announces New
Court
Commissioner
San Diego Superior Court
judges have selected
attorney James T. Atkins to
serve as a Court
Commissioner.
He took the oath of office on
Friday, June 19, 2009.
Before joining the bench,
Commissioner Atkins worked as
an associate with Thorsnes,
Bartolotta & McGuire.
A graduate of the California
Western School of Law,
Commissioner Atkins holds a
Bachelor’s degree in English from
San Diego State University. A US
Navy veteran,
Commissioner Atkins served
aboard a nuclear powered fast
attack submarine during the
Iranian hostage crisis and later
aboard a San Diego-based
amphibious assault ship.
He fills the position vacated by the
retirement of Court Commissioner
Carol M. Frausto.
Commissioners are attorneys
selected by the judges of the
Superior Court. The
Commissioners are given powers
to hear and make decisions
concerning certain legal matters
such a misdemeanors and traffic
cases.
SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA • COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO
Date: 6/23/2009
Superior Court
Announces New
Court
Commissioner
San Diego Superior Court
judges have selected
attorney James T. Atkins to
serve as a Court
Commissioner.
He took the oath of office on
Friday, June 19, 2009.
Before joining the bench,
Commissioner Atkins worked as
an associate with Thorsnes,
Bartolotta & McGuire.
A graduate of the California
Western School of Law,
Commissioner Atkins holds a
Bachelor’s degree in English from
San Diego State University. A US
Navy veteran,
Commissioner Atkins served
aboard a nuclear powered fast
attack submarine during the
Iranian hostage crisis and later
aboard a San Diego-based
amphibious assault ship.
He fills the position vacated by the
retirement of Court Commissioner
Carol M. Frausto.
Commissioners are attorneys
selected by the judges of the
Superior Court. The
Commissioners are given powers
to hear and make decisions
concerning certain legal matters
such a misdemeanors and traffic
cases.
June 3, 2008
Election
Judicial Contests
for San Diego County, CA
League of Women Voters
County Results as of Jun 13
5:09pm, 100.0% of Precincts
Reporting (1893/1893)
34.0% Countywide Voter Turnout
(464,981/1,369,496)
Statewide Results as of Jun 25
9:49am, 100.0% of Precincts
Reporting (23398/23398)
27.9% Statewide Voter Turnout
(4,490,906/16,123,787)
Judicial
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 3Click here for
more info on this contest including
known links to other sites
* Blaine K. Bowman .......... 316293
votes 100.00%
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 19Click here for
more info on this contest including
known links to other sites
* Garry Haehnle .......... 183235 votes
51.77%
* Paul E. Cooper .......... 170704
votes 48.23%
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 45Click here for
more info on this contest including
known links to other sites
* Evan Patrick Kirvin .......... 201402
votes 56.67%
* Robert Faigin .......... 154012 votes
43.33%
Cancelled Contests not on the Ballot
The following elected offices are not
on the ballot because an insufficient
number of candidates applied. All
candidates that file win since they
are uncontested.
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 1 (1 Elected)
* Cynthia Bashant
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 2 (1 Elected)
* David M. Gill
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 4 (1 Elected)
* John L. Davidson
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 5 (1 Elected)
* Frederic L. Link
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 6 (1 Elected)
* Jeffrey B. Barton
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 7 (1 Elected)
* Carolyn M. Caietti
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 8 (1 Elected)
* Edward P. Allard, III
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 9 (1 Elected)
* Steven R. Denton
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 10 (1 Elected)
* Earl H. Maas
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 11 (1 Elected)
* Jeff Bostwick
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 12 (1 Elected)
* David J. Danielsen
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 13 (1 Elected)
* Esteban Hernandez
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 14 (1 Elected)
* Louis R. Hanoian
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 15 (1 Elected)
* Timothy M. Casserly
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 16 (1 Elected)
* Timothy W. Tower
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 17 (1 Elected)
* Richard G. Cline
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 18 (1 Elected)
* Laura W. Halgren
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 20 (1 Elected)
* Kathleen M. Lewis
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 21 (1 Elected)
* Laura Haas Parsky
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 22 (1 Elected)
* Margie G. Woods
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 24 (1 Elected)
* Timothy R. Walsh
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 25 (1 Elected)
* Marshall Y. Hockett
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 26 (1 Elected)
* Richard E.L. Strauss
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 27 (1 Elected)
* Linda B. Quinn
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 28 (1 Elected)
* Howard H. Shore
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 29 (1 Elected)
* Eddie C. Sturgeon
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 30 (1 Elected)
* Ronald S. Prager
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 31 (1 Elected)
* Gonzalo Curiel
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 32 (1 Elected)
* Harry M. Elias
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 33 (1 Elected)
* John S. Einhorn
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 34 (1 Elected)
* John S. Meyer
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 35 (1 Elected)
* Michael T. Smyth
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 36 (1 Elected)
* Jacqueline Stern
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 37 (1 Elected)
* Lisa Guy-Schall
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 38 (1
Elected)
* Judith F. Hayes
[Cancelled (This elected
office is not on the ballot
because an insufficient
number of candidates
applied.)]
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 39 (1 Elected)
* David M. Szumowski
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 40 (1 Elected)
* Alvin E. Green, Jr.
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 41 (1 Elected)
* William R. Nevitt
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 42 (1 Elected)
* Robert J. Trentacosta
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 43 (1 Elected)
* Desiree A. Bruce-Lyle
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 44 (1 Elected)
* Charles R. Gill
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 46 (1 Elected)
* Browder Willis
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 47 (1 Elected)
* Carol Isackson
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 48 (1 Elected)
* Daniel Bruce Goldstein
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 49 (1 Elected)
* Peter L. Gallagher
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 50 (1 Elected)
* Richard S. Whitney
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 51 (1 Elected)
* Ronald L. Styn
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 52 (1 Elected)
* Laura J. Birkmeyer
Election
Judicial Contests
for San Diego County, CA
League of Women Voters
County Results as of Jun 13
5:09pm, 100.0% of Precincts
Reporting (1893/1893)
34.0% Countywide Voter Turnout
(464,981/1,369,496)
Statewide Results as of Jun 25
9:49am, 100.0% of Precincts
Reporting (23398/23398)
27.9% Statewide Voter Turnout
(4,490,906/16,123,787)
Judicial
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 3Click here for
more info on this contest including
known links to other sites
* Blaine K. Bowman .......... 316293
votes 100.00%
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 19Click here for
more info on this contest including
known links to other sites
* Garry Haehnle .......... 183235 votes
51.77%
* Paul E. Cooper .......... 170704
votes 48.23%
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 45Click here for
more info on this contest including
known links to other sites
* Evan Patrick Kirvin .......... 201402
votes 56.67%
* Robert Faigin .......... 154012 votes
43.33%
Cancelled Contests not on the Ballot
The following elected offices are not
on the ballot because an insufficient
number of candidates applied. All
candidates that file win since they
are uncontested.
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 1 (1 Elected)
* Cynthia Bashant
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 2 (1 Elected)
* David M. Gill
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 4 (1 Elected)
* John L. Davidson
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 5 (1 Elected)
* Frederic L. Link
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 6 (1 Elected)
* Jeffrey B. Barton
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 7 (1 Elected)
* Carolyn M. Caietti
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 8 (1 Elected)
* Edward P. Allard, III
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 9 (1 Elected)
* Steven R. Denton
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 10 (1 Elected)
* Earl H. Maas
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 11 (1 Elected)
* Jeff Bostwick
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 12 (1 Elected)
* David J. Danielsen
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 13 (1 Elected)
* Esteban Hernandez
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 14 (1 Elected)
* Louis R. Hanoian
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 15 (1 Elected)
* Timothy M. Casserly
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 16 (1 Elected)
* Timothy W. Tower
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 17 (1 Elected)
* Richard G. Cline
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 18 (1 Elected)
* Laura W. Halgren
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 20 (1 Elected)
* Kathleen M. Lewis
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 21 (1 Elected)
* Laura Haas Parsky
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 22 (1 Elected)
* Margie G. Woods
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 24 (1 Elected)
* Timothy R. Walsh
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 25 (1 Elected)
* Marshall Y. Hockett
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 26 (1 Elected)
* Richard E.L. Strauss
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 27 (1 Elected)
* Linda B. Quinn
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 28 (1 Elected)
* Howard H. Shore
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 29 (1 Elected)
* Eddie C. Sturgeon
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 30 (1 Elected)
* Ronald S. Prager
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 31 (1 Elected)
* Gonzalo Curiel
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 32 (1 Elected)
* Harry M. Elias
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 33 (1 Elected)
* John S. Einhorn
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 34 (1 Elected)
* John S. Meyer
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 35 (1 Elected)
* Michael T. Smyth
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 36 (1 Elected)
* Jacqueline Stern
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 37 (1 Elected)
* Lisa Guy-Schall
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 38 (1
Elected)
* Judith F. Hayes
[Cancelled (This elected
office is not on the ballot
because an insufficient
number of candidates
applied.)]
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 39 (1 Elected)
* David M. Szumowski
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 40 (1 Elected)
* Alvin E. Green, Jr.
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 41 (1 Elected)
* William R. Nevitt
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 42 (1 Elected)
* Robert J. Trentacosta
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 43 (1 Elected)
* Desiree A. Bruce-Lyle
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 44 (1 Elected)
* Charles R. Gill
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 46 (1 Elected)
* Browder Willis
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 47 (1 Elected)
* Carol Isackson
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 48 (1 Elected)
* Daniel Bruce Goldstein
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 49 (1 Elected)
* Peter L. Gallagher
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 50 (1 Elected)
* Richard S. Whitney
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 51 (1 Elected)
* Ronald L. Styn
Superior Court Judge; County of
San Diego; Office 52 (1 Elected)
* Laura J. Birkmeyer
Home
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
v. Maura Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
v. Maura Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
California courts agency
called dysfunctional
May 30, 2012
Associated Press
A blistering new report quietly
released over the Memorial
Day Weekend called for the
overhaul of California's
Administrative Office of the
Courts, which it described as
dysfunctional, secretive and
top-heavy with overpaid
executives.
The report was prepared by a
committee of state judges
appointed last year by Chief
Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to
investigate claims the
administrative arm of the
courts had grown too large
and costly amid severe budget
cuts. The chief justice
released the nearly 300-page
report late Friday night. The
report chided the AOC for
claiming in February that it
employed "more than 750"
when it concluded that the
AOC has grown from 430
workers in 2002 to more than
1,100 last year with hundreds
earning six figure salaries amid
a supposed hiring freeze. AOC
managers conceded they got
around the hiring freeze by
employing temporary and
contract workers.
The report also said the AOC
appeared guilty of violating its
own work rules by allowing
some workers to telecommute
from long distances, including
one attorney who works from
Switzerland.
The report criticized the
agency for a lack of
transparency.
"The AOC's reporting of
staffing levels has been
misleading, leading to mistrust
of the AOC," the report said.
"Disingenuously suggesting
that AOC staffing levels have
been reduced in response to
branch-wide budget and
staffing cuts has led to further
mistrust and cynicism."
The report calls for staffing
cuts to fewer than 700
employees and for the
agency's headquarter to be
moved from San Francisco to
Sacramento.
""The organization needs to be
right-sized," the report
concluded.
The release of the report also
comes amid Gov. Jerry
Brown's plan to cut $544
million from the third branch's
budget.
In a conference call with
reporters on Tuesday, the
chief justice said the report will
be considered next month by
the Judicial Council, an
appointed body that oversees
the AOC. She said the report
was a look at the past and
didn't consider the AOC's
current plans to grapple with
deep budget cuts. She also
defended the public release of
the document, saying she
released it as soon as she
received it.
One of the agency's chief
critics, the Alliance of
California Judges, applauded
the findings.
"The nearly 300-page report is
an A-to-Z indictment of an out
of control organization," the
group wrote in an email
Monday alerting media and
others to the report's release.
"It is an absolute `must read'
for everyone concerned about
the functionality and credibility
of our judicial branch." The
group called for even more
staff cuts.
called dysfunctional
May 30, 2012
Associated Press
A blistering new report quietly
released over the Memorial
Day Weekend called for the
overhaul of California's
Administrative Office of the
Courts, which it described as
dysfunctional, secretive and
top-heavy with overpaid
executives.
The report was prepared by a
committee of state judges
appointed last year by Chief
Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to
investigate claims the
administrative arm of the
courts had grown too large
and costly amid severe budget
cuts. The chief justice
released the nearly 300-page
report late Friday night. The
report chided the AOC for
claiming in February that it
employed "more than 750"
when it concluded that the
AOC has grown from 430
workers in 2002 to more than
1,100 last year with hundreds
earning six figure salaries amid
a supposed hiring freeze. AOC
managers conceded they got
around the hiring freeze by
employing temporary and
contract workers.
The report also said the AOC
appeared guilty of violating its
own work rules by allowing
some workers to telecommute
from long distances, including
one attorney who works from
Switzerland.
The report criticized the
agency for a lack of
transparency.
"The AOC's reporting of
staffing levels has been
misleading, leading to mistrust
of the AOC," the report said.
"Disingenuously suggesting
that AOC staffing levels have
been reduced in response to
branch-wide budget and
staffing cuts has led to further
mistrust and cynicism."
The report calls for staffing
cuts to fewer than 700
employees and for the
agency's headquarter to be
moved from San Francisco to
Sacramento.
""The organization needs to be
right-sized," the report
concluded.
The release of the report also
comes amid Gov. Jerry
Brown's plan to cut $544
million from the third branch's
budget.
In a conference call with
reporters on Tuesday, the
chief justice said the report will
be considered next month by
the Judicial Council, an
appointed body that oversees
the AOC. She said the report
was a look at the past and
didn't consider the AOC's
current plans to grapple with
deep budget cuts. She also
defended the public release of
the document, saying she
released it as soon as she
received it.
One of the agency's chief
critics, the Alliance of
California Judges, applauded
the findings.
"The nearly 300-page report is
an A-to-Z indictment of an out
of control organization," the
group wrote in an email
Monday alerting media and
others to the report's release.
"It is an absolute `must read'
for everyone concerned about
the functionality and credibility
of our judicial branch." The
group called for even more
staff cuts.
D.A. Targets Third Judge for Boycott
February 10, 2010
By KELLY THORNTON
Voice of San Diego
The San Diego County District Attorney's Office has threatened to boycott another Superior Court
judge over rulings that prosecutors found troubling, according to a personal account from the judge
in question.
Laura Parsky, the third judge in four months to be targeted by the district attorney, related details of
the possible boycott during a court hearing in a domestic violence case Jan. 15.
Parsky said it was her ethical duty to disclose that a district attorney supervisor had complained
to the supervising judge in Chula Vista about some of her rulings, including decisions she made
in the still-pending domestic violence case. The supervising judge, who handles ministerial
matters such as assigning cases to other judges, then relayed these concerns to Parsky,
along with a warning that the District Attorney's Office may seek to disqualify her in future
cases.
It is considered unethical for a party in a pending case to have communications with the judge
without the other parties present. Although the prosecutor and Parsky had no direct
communication in this case, Parsky was so concerned about the implications of the exchange that
she consulted a state judicial ethics panel and was advised to formally disclose it.
She did so at the next hearing in the domestic violence case of defendant Michael Barron.
"The supervising attorney from the District Attorney's Office ... advised the supervising judge that the
district attorney's office may be exercising peremptory challenges against me based on that ruling
and others," Parsky said, referring in part to decisions in the Barron case.
Her comments are contained in a court transcript of the hearing. Barron's defense attorney, Lynn
Ball, subsequently filed a motion to disqualify the District Attorney's Office because of
"arrogant misconduct."
"I just don't like that they have this old boys' club down there," Ball said in an interview. "It's bad
enough that every damn judge is a former D.A. To feel that they can go talk to the chief judge
and say, 'Square your guys away or they're going to be challenged,' that is a violation of the
separation of power."
"Essentially (the D.A. is) lecturing the chief judge on how the judges should rule and that's not right.
That's not how our system is supposed to work," Ball said.
The Parsky situation comes on the heels of two other cases involving judges and the district
attorney.
In October, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis directed her prosecutors to use their peremptory
challenge against respected Judge John Einhorn, meaning the office blocked all new cases from
going to the judge.
That boycott ended just days before the office did the same thing to Judge Harry Elias at the end of
January, saying he was biased because he harshly criticized the prosecutors for failing to follow
rules for turning over evidence to defense lawyers.
The rare moves by Dumanis so disturbed the defense community that a group of lawyers elected
Einhorn as trial judge of the year for 2009. Numerous lawyers have said the boycotts are a blatant
power play to control the bench.
"I think it's a dangerous attempt to intimidate and manipulate the court," said Allen Bloom, attorney
for Cynthia Sommer.
Sommer was convicted in 2007 of fatally poisoning her Marine husband with arsenic and spent
more than two years in prison before the case was dismissed when new test results showed the
husband had no arsenic in his body. Einhorn was the judge in that case; some in the legal
community have speculated that Einhorn was boycotted over rulings or comments he made in that
case.
Dumanis, who is not required by law to state a reason for alleging bias by these judges, has only
addressed the Einhorn situation in a brief statement: "This decision was made after careful
consideration and thoughtful review over an extended period of time. It is a judgment call made in
the best interests of our clients, the People of the State of California, and the cases we are
prosecuting."
Such boycotts are not unprecedented, but these are believed to be the only cases involving
Dumanis' office in almost eight years.
It was against this backdrop, with these cases in the news, that the district attorney supervisor
approached the supervisory judge. Though court documents don't mention names, the D.A.
supervisor in Chula Vista at the time was Gregg McClain; the supervising judge is Esteban
Hernandez.
Ball, the defense attorney, noted in his motion that the threat of a blanket challenge -- when
prosecutors use what's known as a peremptory challenge to allege bias and block a judge from
receiving any new cases -- could be a career-ending proposition for a judge for a couple of
reasons.
It means the judge will no longer be assigned criminal cases, which could relegate him or her to
handle less glamorous civil cases; and it leaves the judge vulnerable to a challenger when
reelection time comes.
Incumbent judges are rarely challenged, but without the district attorney's endorsement it opens a
door for savvy challengers to seize on the appearance the incumbent is soft on crime.
Ball asked that the prosecutor be replaced by an impartial agency, such as the state Attorney
General's Office and argued that removing the judge would not solve the problem.
"Whatever judge in San Diego Superior Court would substitute for Judge Parsky would know the
position of the District Attorney's Office and would be in a position to be cowed by the authority and
power of the district attorney to influence the judge to rule in accordance with the District Attorney's
desires," Ball wrote in his motion. "That judge would know that he or she could also be the victim of
the District Attorney's wrath if he or she did not rule in accordance with the district attorney's desire."
When asked whether the District Attorney's Office planned to boycott Parsky, the current supervisor
in Chula Vista, Victor Nuñez, said: "We are monitoring her. We are monitoring how she handles
cases." He declined to say more. (Nuñez was not the supervisor who complained about Parsky.)
Paul Levikow, Dumanis' spokesman, said the office is not boycotting Parsky and that the issue
involved one case, but he declined to say more, noting the office does not comment on pending
cases.
A court official with knowledge of the case said Parsky's version doesn't tell the whole story.
The official characterized her as a bright but inexperienced judge who has run afoul of
prosecutors because, in their view, she is making rookie mistakes. She's not being bullied to
make favorable decisions for the prosecution, the court official said; rather, she's being urged to
make sound ones.
Some judges and prosecutors said such informal, behind-the-scenes critiques are not unusual
and are meant to be constructive, not manipulative. In this case, the information was intended to be
a confidential heads-up for the supervising judge that he may want to steer more complex cases to
another judge because prosecutors are likely to challenge otherwise. The criticism probably wasn't
even meant for Parsky to hear, they said.
"This happens every day with supervising judges, the D.A.'s office, public defenders and the private
bar. It's mostly over demeanor, as in, tell them to stop being so snippety with people. It's not a big
conspiracy, it's not 'We're going to try to control the bench.' It's not nefarious, it's not bad, it's actually
a way to educate certain judges," said the court official with knowledge of the situation.
Case in point: In the matter of Barron, who was convicted of domestic violence charges, the
remaining issue before sentencing was whether he had a previous felony conviction, which
would make the current conviction a second strike and result in a much greater sentence.
According to the courthouse source, Parsky refused to admit into
evidence fingerprints and other government records without testimony
from a Sacramento lab expert to authenticate those records. The law
allows them to be admitted without such authentication.
Prosecutors routinely avoid having to fly in an expert for
authentications by having their own investigators take the fingerprints
and compare them to the government record to validate they belong to
the same person. In this case, prosecutors wanted to prove that Barron was the same
man who committed a previous felony and therefore did have a prior strike on his record.
As for the Barron case, eventually the prosecution and defense agreed that Barron did in fact have
a prior felony conviction. The defense plans to ask the judge to ignore that first conviction. A Feb. 4
sentencing hearing was delayed so the state Attorney General's Office could weigh in on the
disqualification issue.
Parsky is the daughter of prominent Republican kingmaker Gerry Parsky. The elder Parsky has
close ties to former President George W. Bush, served on the University of California Board of
Regents, has played a big role in the selection of federal judges and U.S. attorneys in California
and is very active in state politics.
Judge Parsky was appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2006. Most of her experience is on the
federal side. She worked as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department in
Washington, D.C., where she was a protégé of Michael Chertoff, then a high-ranking Justice
Department official. He later became head of the Department of Homeland Security. Parsky, a Yale
University graduate with a law degree from UC Berkeley, is registered as decline to state.
Kelly Thornton is a San Diego-based freelance writer. Please contact her directly at
kellythornton7407@yahoo.com.
February 10, 2010
By KELLY THORNTON
Voice of San Diego
The San Diego County District Attorney's Office has threatened to boycott another Superior Court
judge over rulings that prosecutors found troubling, according to a personal account from the judge
in question.
Laura Parsky, the third judge in four months to be targeted by the district attorney, related details of
the possible boycott during a court hearing in a domestic violence case Jan. 15.
Parsky said it was her ethical duty to disclose that a district attorney supervisor had complained
to the supervising judge in Chula Vista about some of her rulings, including decisions she made
in the still-pending domestic violence case. The supervising judge, who handles ministerial
matters such as assigning cases to other judges, then relayed these concerns to Parsky,
along with a warning that the District Attorney's Office may seek to disqualify her in future
cases.
It is considered unethical for a party in a pending case to have communications with the judge
without the other parties present. Although the prosecutor and Parsky had no direct
communication in this case, Parsky was so concerned about the implications of the exchange that
she consulted a state judicial ethics panel and was advised to formally disclose it.
She did so at the next hearing in the domestic violence case of defendant Michael Barron.
"The supervising attorney from the District Attorney's Office ... advised the supervising judge that the
district attorney's office may be exercising peremptory challenges against me based on that ruling
and others," Parsky said, referring in part to decisions in the Barron case.
Her comments are contained in a court transcript of the hearing. Barron's defense attorney, Lynn
Ball, subsequently filed a motion to disqualify the District Attorney's Office because of
"arrogant misconduct."
"I just don't like that they have this old boys' club down there," Ball said in an interview. "It's bad
enough that every damn judge is a former D.A. To feel that they can go talk to the chief judge
and say, 'Square your guys away or they're going to be challenged,' that is a violation of the
separation of power."
"Essentially (the D.A. is) lecturing the chief judge on how the judges should rule and that's not right.
That's not how our system is supposed to work," Ball said.
The Parsky situation comes on the heels of two other cases involving judges and the district
attorney.
In October, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis directed her prosecutors to use their peremptory
challenge against respected Judge John Einhorn, meaning the office blocked all new cases from
going to the judge.
That boycott ended just days before the office did the same thing to Judge Harry Elias at the end of
January, saying he was biased because he harshly criticized the prosecutors for failing to follow
rules for turning over evidence to defense lawyers.
The rare moves by Dumanis so disturbed the defense community that a group of lawyers elected
Einhorn as trial judge of the year for 2009. Numerous lawyers have said the boycotts are a blatant
power play to control the bench.
"I think it's a dangerous attempt to intimidate and manipulate the court," said Allen Bloom, attorney
for Cynthia Sommer.
Sommer was convicted in 2007 of fatally poisoning her Marine husband with arsenic and spent
more than two years in prison before the case was dismissed when new test results showed the
husband had no arsenic in his body. Einhorn was the judge in that case; some in the legal
community have speculated that Einhorn was boycotted over rulings or comments he made in that
case.
Dumanis, who is not required by law to state a reason for alleging bias by these judges, has only
addressed the Einhorn situation in a brief statement: "This decision was made after careful
consideration and thoughtful review over an extended period of time. It is a judgment call made in
the best interests of our clients, the People of the State of California, and the cases we are
prosecuting."
Such boycotts are not unprecedented, but these are believed to be the only cases involving
Dumanis' office in almost eight years.
It was against this backdrop, with these cases in the news, that the district attorney supervisor
approached the supervisory judge. Though court documents don't mention names, the D.A.
supervisor in Chula Vista at the time was Gregg McClain; the supervising judge is Esteban
Hernandez.
Ball, the defense attorney, noted in his motion that the threat of a blanket challenge -- when
prosecutors use what's known as a peremptory challenge to allege bias and block a judge from
receiving any new cases -- could be a career-ending proposition for a judge for a couple of
reasons.
It means the judge will no longer be assigned criminal cases, which could relegate him or her to
handle less glamorous civil cases; and it leaves the judge vulnerable to a challenger when
reelection time comes.
Incumbent judges are rarely challenged, but without the district attorney's endorsement it opens a
door for savvy challengers to seize on the appearance the incumbent is soft on crime.
Ball asked that the prosecutor be replaced by an impartial agency, such as the state Attorney
General's Office and argued that removing the judge would not solve the problem.
"Whatever judge in San Diego Superior Court would substitute for Judge Parsky would know the
position of the District Attorney's Office and would be in a position to be cowed by the authority and
power of the district attorney to influence the judge to rule in accordance with the District Attorney's
desires," Ball wrote in his motion. "That judge would know that he or she could also be the victim of
the District Attorney's wrath if he or she did not rule in accordance with the district attorney's desire."
When asked whether the District Attorney's Office planned to boycott Parsky, the current supervisor
in Chula Vista, Victor Nuñez, said: "We are monitoring her. We are monitoring how she handles
cases." He declined to say more. (Nuñez was not the supervisor who complained about Parsky.)
Paul Levikow, Dumanis' spokesman, said the office is not boycotting Parsky and that the issue
involved one case, but he declined to say more, noting the office does not comment on pending
cases.
A court official with knowledge of the case said Parsky's version doesn't tell the whole story.
The official characterized her as a bright but inexperienced judge who has run afoul of
prosecutors because, in their view, she is making rookie mistakes. She's not being bullied to
make favorable decisions for the prosecution, the court official said; rather, she's being urged to
make sound ones.
Some judges and prosecutors said such informal, behind-the-scenes critiques are not unusual
and are meant to be constructive, not manipulative. In this case, the information was intended to be
a confidential heads-up for the supervising judge that he may want to steer more complex cases to
another judge because prosecutors are likely to challenge otherwise. The criticism probably wasn't
even meant for Parsky to hear, they said.
"This happens every day with supervising judges, the D.A.'s office, public defenders and the private
bar. It's mostly over demeanor, as in, tell them to stop being so snippety with people. It's not a big
conspiracy, it's not 'We're going to try to control the bench.' It's not nefarious, it's not bad, it's actually
a way to educate certain judges," said the court official with knowledge of the situation.
Case in point: In the matter of Barron, who was convicted of domestic violence charges, the
remaining issue before sentencing was whether he had a previous felony conviction, which
would make the current conviction a second strike and result in a much greater sentence.
According to the courthouse source, Parsky refused to admit into
evidence fingerprints and other government records without testimony
from a Sacramento lab expert to authenticate those records. The law
allows them to be admitted without such authentication.
Prosecutors routinely avoid having to fly in an expert for
authentications by having their own investigators take the fingerprints
and compare them to the government record to validate they belong to
the same person. In this case, prosecutors wanted to prove that Barron was the same
man who committed a previous felony and therefore did have a prior strike on his record.
As for the Barron case, eventually the prosecution and defense agreed that Barron did in fact have
a prior felony conviction. The defense plans to ask the judge to ignore that first conviction. A Feb. 4
sentencing hearing was delayed so the state Attorney General's Office could weigh in on the
disqualification issue.
Parsky is the daughter of prominent Republican kingmaker Gerry Parsky. The elder Parsky has
close ties to former President George W. Bush, served on the University of California Board of
Regents, has played a big role in the selection of federal judges and U.S. attorneys in California
and is very active in state politics.
Judge Parsky was appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2006. Most of her experience is on the
federal side. She worked as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department in
Washington, D.C., where she was a protégé of Michael Chertoff, then a high-ranking Justice
Department official. He later became head of the Department of Homeland Security. Parsky, a Yale
University graduate with a law degree from UC Berkeley, is registered as decline to state.
Kelly Thornton is a San Diego-based freelance writer. Please contact her directly at
kellythornton7407@yahoo.com.
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
Date: 09/22/09
Judge Kevin A. Enright to Lead San Diego Superior
Court
Judge Kevin A. Enright will become Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior
Court on January 1, 2010. Judge Enright, who has served as the Assistant Presiding
Judge since 2008, will assume the office vacated by Presiding Judge Kenneth K.
So on December 31, 2009. In
addition, San Diego Superior Court Judges have elected Judge Robert J.
Trentacosta to serve as Assistant Presiding Judge.
In his new position, Judge Enright will supervise and manage the San Diego Superior
Court, the second largest trial court in the state.
He will oversee a court budget of more than $200 million, 155 judicial officers and
support staff of more than 1,300 employees. An Executive Committee of Superior
Court judges from around the county and administrative staff will assist Judge Enright
in leading the court.
“During these challenging budgetary times, we will continue to pursue excellence in
judging. Our judges and dedicated support staff will keep working hard while seeking
to achieve and maintain the highest level of service to the public,” says Judge
Enright.
Appointed to the bench in 1995, Judge Enright’s background includes private, public,
civil and criminal law experience. Judge Enright worked at Butz, Lucas, Dunn &
Enright as a civil trial lawyer (1985-95) and worked as a Deputy District Attorney in
Ukiah, California (1979-1984). As a lawyer, he tried over 100 jury trials.
A graduate of Grossmont High School, Judge Enright received a degree in
history from Stanford University (1975) and his law degree from the
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, California
(1979)
Judge Trentacosta was appointed to the bench in 2001. His prior experience
includes work in both public and private practice including: civil litigation at Boudreau
and Trentacosta, (1991-2001); and Schall, Boudreau, and Gore, (1985-91); Deputy
City Attorney, City of San
Diego Litigation Division, (1981-85); Deputy City Attorney, City of San Diego Criminal
Division, (1980-81).
A 1979 graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law, Judge Trentacosta is
currently the Supervising Judge of the Superior Court’s Criminal Division.
Hon. Robert J. Trentacosta ’79 To Lead San Diego Superior
Court
The Honorable Robert J. Trentacosta, ’79, will become Presiding Judge of the San
Diego Superior Court on January 1, 2012.
Judge Trentacosta currently serves on USD School of Law’s USD School of Alumni
Association Board of Directors and was president of the board from 2008–2009. In
addition, he is member of the law school’s Board of Visitors. Judge Trentacosta, who
has served as the Assistant Presiding Judge since 2010, will assume the office
vacated by Presiding Judge Kevin A. Enright on December 31, 2011.
“It is an honor to serve my colleagues as Presiding Judge. I am fortunate to work with
talented and conscientious judicial officers and staff who remain dedicated to
providing service to the public at the highest level,” says Judge Trentacosta.
In 2012 and 2013, Judge Trentacosta will supervise and manage the San Diego
Superior Court, the second largest trial court in the state. He will oversee 154 judicial
officers, more than 1,400 employees, and a court budget of more than $188 million.
[Maura Larkins comment: Presiding Judge Enright considered it a challenge to
manage on a $200 million budget--and that number will decrease even more in the
coming years.]
An Executive Committee of Superior Court judges from around the county and
administrative staff will assist Judge Trentacosta in this effort.
Judge Trentacosta brings diverse court administrative experience to the job. In
addition to his tenure as Assistant Presiding Judge, Judge Trentacosta has served as
Supervising Judge for the Central Criminal and the South County Divisions. In
addition, he has presided over a wide range of case assignments, including Criminal,
Domestic Violence, Juvenile Delinquency, Juvenile Dependency, Drug Court, and the
Superior Court Appellate Panel. He was instrumental in establishing the Behavioral
Health Court, an innovative program designed to manage cases involving mentally ill
criminal defendants. He has also presided over Homeless Court for the past four
years.
Outside the court, Judge Trentacosta has participated in numerous judicial and
nonjudicial organizations including serving as chairperson, California Judges
Association Judicial Ethics Committee (2010–2011); instructor and curriculum author,
Supervising Judges Institute, Center for Judicial Education and Research (2009–
present). Judge Trentacosta is a frequent guest lecturer for a variety of bar
association and trial lawyer groups.
Appointed to the bench in 2001, Judge Trentacosta has had a varied career in both
private/public and civil/criminal law. His background includes co-managing partner,
Boudreau & Trentacosta (1991–2000); shareholder, Schall Boudreau & Gore (1985–
1990); deputy, Civil Litigation Division (1981–1985) and deputy, Criminal Division,
San Diego City Attorney’s Office (1980).
Judge Kevin A. Enright to Lead San Diego Superior
Court
Judge Kevin A. Enright will become Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior
Court on January 1, 2010. Judge Enright, who has served as the Assistant Presiding
Judge since 2008, will assume the office vacated by Presiding Judge Kenneth K.
So on December 31, 2009. In
addition, San Diego Superior Court Judges have elected Judge Robert J.
Trentacosta to serve as Assistant Presiding Judge.
In his new position, Judge Enright will supervise and manage the San Diego Superior
Court, the second largest trial court in the state.
He will oversee a court budget of more than $200 million, 155 judicial officers and
support staff of more than 1,300 employees. An Executive Committee of Superior
Court judges from around the county and administrative staff will assist Judge Enright
in leading the court.
“During these challenging budgetary times, we will continue to pursue excellence in
judging. Our judges and dedicated support staff will keep working hard while seeking
to achieve and maintain the highest level of service to the public,” says Judge
Enright.
Appointed to the bench in 1995, Judge Enright’s background includes private, public,
civil and criminal law experience. Judge Enright worked at Butz, Lucas, Dunn &
Enright as a civil trial lawyer (1985-95) and worked as a Deputy District Attorney in
Ukiah, California (1979-1984). As a lawyer, he tried over 100 jury trials.
A graduate of Grossmont High School, Judge Enright received a degree in
history from Stanford University (1975) and his law degree from the
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, California
(1979)
Judge Trentacosta was appointed to the bench in 2001. His prior experience
includes work in both public and private practice including: civil litigation at Boudreau
and Trentacosta, (1991-2001); and Schall, Boudreau, and Gore, (1985-91); Deputy
City Attorney, City of San
Diego Litigation Division, (1981-85); Deputy City Attorney, City of San Diego Criminal
Division, (1980-81).
A 1979 graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law, Judge Trentacosta is
currently the Supervising Judge of the Superior Court’s Criminal Division.
Hon. Robert J. Trentacosta ’79 To Lead San Diego Superior
Court
The Honorable Robert J. Trentacosta, ’79, will become Presiding Judge of the San
Diego Superior Court on January 1, 2012.
Judge Trentacosta currently serves on USD School of Law’s USD School of Alumni
Association Board of Directors and was president of the board from 2008–2009. In
addition, he is member of the law school’s Board of Visitors. Judge Trentacosta, who
has served as the Assistant Presiding Judge since 2010, will assume the office
vacated by Presiding Judge Kevin A. Enright on December 31, 2011.
“It is an honor to serve my colleagues as Presiding Judge. I am fortunate to work with
talented and conscientious judicial officers and staff who remain dedicated to
providing service to the public at the highest level,” says Judge Trentacosta.
In 2012 and 2013, Judge Trentacosta will supervise and manage the San Diego
Superior Court, the second largest trial court in the state. He will oversee 154 judicial
officers, more than 1,400 employees, and a court budget of more than $188 million.
[Maura Larkins comment: Presiding Judge Enright considered it a challenge to
manage on a $200 million budget--and that number will decrease even more in the
coming years.]
An Executive Committee of Superior Court judges from around the county and
administrative staff will assist Judge Trentacosta in this effort.
Judge Trentacosta brings diverse court administrative experience to the job. In
addition to his tenure as Assistant Presiding Judge, Judge Trentacosta has served as
Supervising Judge for the Central Criminal and the South County Divisions. In
addition, he has presided over a wide range of case assignments, including Criminal,
Domestic Violence, Juvenile Delinquency, Juvenile Dependency, Drug Court, and the
Superior Court Appellate Panel. He was instrumental in establishing the Behavioral
Health Court, an innovative program designed to manage cases involving mentally ill
criminal defendants. He has also presided over Homeless Court for the past four
years.
Outside the court, Judge Trentacosta has participated in numerous judicial and
nonjudicial organizations including serving as chairperson, California Judges
Association Judicial Ethics Committee (2010–2011); instructor and curriculum author,
Supervising Judges Institute, Center for Judicial Education and Research (2009–
present). Judge Trentacosta is a frequent guest lecturer for a variety of bar
association and trial lawyer groups.
Appointed to the bench in 2001, Judge Trentacosta has had a varied career in both
private/public and civil/criminal law. His background includes co-managing partner,
Boudreau & Trentacosta (1991–2000); shareholder, Schall Boudreau & Gore (1985–
1990); deputy, Civil Litigation Division (1981–1985) and deputy, Criminal Division,
San Diego City Attorney’s Office (1980).
Here's the backstory to the
above article about the AOC:
August 25, 2011
Presiding Judges
Chart New Course,
Toss Staff
By MARIA DINZEO
Courthouse News
(CN)
California's presiding judges are
throwing off years of dominance
by the bureaucratic staff based
in San Francisco, with a meeting
that included taking to task the
bureaucracy's head lawyer and
removing staff members from
the room so the judges could
speak frankly.
"Not having staff in the room
allowed the presiding judges to
be completely candid," said
incoming committee chair Judge
David Rosenberg of Yolo
County. "I'm implementing a
different approach to these
meetings."
He added, "I'm attempting to
give the presiding judges much
more opportunity to meet
together, talk together and work
together. In the past, these
meetings have been more in the
form of lectures where AOC
staff basically give us
information. In my opinion that
can be done in a different way,
without taking up the entire
meeting."
Rosenberg said the initiative to
move to break away from the
staff's dominance was shared
by both himself and the
outgoing head of the presiding
judges group, San Diego's
Kevin Enright.
With staff out of the room, the
judges discussed how the
courts are led, the judiciary's
budget crisis and what the
relationship should be between
the judges and the central
bureaucracy of the courts.
"The whole purpose of the
exercise was to give presiding
judges an opportunity to talk
frankly without hesitation," he
said. "There was great
commonality voiced by the
judges."
A second judge present at the
meeting said, "I thought it was
very productive, because the
judges were able to talk
amongst ourselves about these
issues we are all facing. The
gauge of success will be what
becomes of that, and if any of
our thoughts and frustrations
are passed on further."
The judge said discussions with
AOC staff, which included
interim director Ron Overholt
and General Counsel Mary
Roberts, were heated during the
first day of meetings.
In particular, San Francisco's
presiding judge, Katherine
Feinstein, clashed with general
counsel Roberts over a legal
opinion on a proposal by the
Bar Association of San
Francisco for increases in some
lawyer appearance fees.
Feinstein was displeased, and
according to those present
expressed that displeasure
clearly, with Roberts for failing
to provide a legal opinion in time
for the meeting. Overholt's
attempt to calm the waters did
not help, said those familiar with
the events.
Feinstein runs a court that has
been hit the hardest by the
budget crisis, with a wholesale
shutdown of San Francisco's
civil courts threatened. The
lawyers in the Bay Area, whose
livelihoods would be put in
jeopardy by such a shutdown,
have proposed increasing
lawyer appearance fees for
case management conferences
in complex cases.
Feinstein, who is desperate for
money to run her courts, wants
the proposal approved. Roberts
did not complete her opinion in
time for the presiding judges'
meeting but she did complete it
in time for this week's meeting of
the Judicial Council, which has
authority to OK the fee hike.
Roberts' opinion recommended
against approval.
Another issue at last week's
presiding judges' meeting
generated "heated discussion,"
according to the judge. It was
about an overhaul committee
headed by Justice Arthur
Scotland.
Earlier this year, Chief Justice
Tani Cantil-Sakauye asked
Scotland's group to survey
judges, attorneys and court
employees from all over the
state on a range of issues,
including whether many of the
bureaucrats are even needed.
In a presentation to the
presiding judges, Scotland said
his committee may take until
next summer to come up with its
findings.
"There was some frustration
about that," said the judge.
"Many of us advocated that the
Judicial Council cut the AOC
before the trial courts in terms
of budget."
The judge said the
administrators had claimed to
be waiting on information from
Scotland's overhaul committee,
called the Strategic Evaluation
Committee, in order to
reorganize the bureaucracy.
The two sides are locked in
battle over funding.
The judges argue that the trial
courts must be kept open, and
to do that money should be
taken away from the army of
highly paid bureaucrats in San
Francisco. The bureaucrats, on
the other hand, are fighting to
protect their turf.
Some judges at the meeting
believed the AOC should not be
waiting for conclusions from the
SEC before it started
reorganizing.
above article about the AOC:
August 25, 2011
Presiding Judges
Chart New Course,
Toss Staff
By MARIA DINZEO
Courthouse News
(CN)
California's presiding judges are
throwing off years of dominance
by the bureaucratic staff based
in San Francisco, with a meeting
that included taking to task the
bureaucracy's head lawyer and
removing staff members from
the room so the judges could
speak frankly.
"Not having staff in the room
allowed the presiding judges to
be completely candid," said
incoming committee chair Judge
David Rosenberg of Yolo
County. "I'm implementing a
different approach to these
meetings."
He added, "I'm attempting to
give the presiding judges much
more opportunity to meet
together, talk together and work
together. In the past, these
meetings have been more in the
form of lectures where AOC
staff basically give us
information. In my opinion that
can be done in a different way,
without taking up the entire
meeting."
Rosenberg said the initiative to
move to break away from the
staff's dominance was shared
by both himself and the
outgoing head of the presiding
judges group, San Diego's
Kevin Enright.
With staff out of the room, the
judges discussed how the
courts are led, the judiciary's
budget crisis and what the
relationship should be between
the judges and the central
bureaucracy of the courts.
"The whole purpose of the
exercise was to give presiding
judges an opportunity to talk
frankly without hesitation," he
said. "There was great
commonality voiced by the
judges."
A second judge present at the
meeting said, "I thought it was
very productive, because the
judges were able to talk
amongst ourselves about these
issues we are all facing. The
gauge of success will be what
becomes of that, and if any of
our thoughts and frustrations
are passed on further."
The judge said discussions with
AOC staff, which included
interim director Ron Overholt
and General Counsel Mary
Roberts, were heated during the
first day of meetings.
In particular, San Francisco's
presiding judge, Katherine
Feinstein, clashed with general
counsel Roberts over a legal
opinion on a proposal by the
Bar Association of San
Francisco for increases in some
lawyer appearance fees.
Feinstein was displeased, and
according to those present
expressed that displeasure
clearly, with Roberts for failing
to provide a legal opinion in time
for the meeting. Overholt's
attempt to calm the waters did
not help, said those familiar with
the events.
Feinstein runs a court that has
been hit the hardest by the
budget crisis, with a wholesale
shutdown of San Francisco's
civil courts threatened. The
lawyers in the Bay Area, whose
livelihoods would be put in
jeopardy by such a shutdown,
have proposed increasing
lawyer appearance fees for
case management conferences
in complex cases.
Feinstein, who is desperate for
money to run her courts, wants
the proposal approved. Roberts
did not complete her opinion in
time for the presiding judges'
meeting but she did complete it
in time for this week's meeting of
the Judicial Council, which has
authority to OK the fee hike.
Roberts' opinion recommended
against approval.
Another issue at last week's
presiding judges' meeting
generated "heated discussion,"
according to the judge. It was
about an overhaul committee
headed by Justice Arthur
Scotland.
Earlier this year, Chief Justice
Tani Cantil-Sakauye asked
Scotland's group to survey
judges, attorneys and court
employees from all over the
state on a range of issues,
including whether many of the
bureaucrats are even needed.
In a presentation to the
presiding judges, Scotland said
his committee may take until
next summer to come up with its
findings.
"There was some frustration
about that," said the judge.
"Many of us advocated that the
Judicial Council cut the AOC
before the trial courts in terms
of budget."
The judge said the
administrators had claimed to
be waiting on information from
Scotland's overhaul committee,
called the Strategic Evaluation
Committee, in order to
reorganize the bureaucracy.
The two sides are locked in
battle over funding.
The judges argue that the trial
courts must be kept open, and
to do that money should be
taken away from the army of
highly paid bureaucrats in San
Francisco. The bureaucrats, on
the other hand, are fighting to
protect their turf.
Some judges at the meeting
believed the AOC should not be
waiting for conclusions from the
SEC before it started
reorganizing.
Judge Sharon Armstrong (a
graduate of Catholic University like
Judge Judith Hayes)
graduate of Catholic University like
Judge Judith Hayes)
Judges from everywhere
Judges Feb. 10, 2013
Main Courthouse Dept. P ROBERT J. TRENTACOSTA, Judge Presiding
Main Courthouse Dept. 24 DAVID J. DANIELSEN, Judge Asst. Presiding
Main Courthouse Dept. 11 TIMOTHY R. WALSH, Judge Supervising,
Criminal
Main Courthouse Dept. 1 WILLIAM C. GENTRY, JR., Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 2 (available for assignment)
Main Courthouse Dept. 3 GARY KREEP, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 4 LAURA J. BIRKMEYER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 5 CINDY D. DAVIS, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 6 ALBERT T. HARUTUNIAN III, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 7 JAMES T. ATKINS, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 8 TRO/CIVIL HARASSMENT
Main Courthouse Dept. 9 TRO/CIVIL HARASSMENT
Main Courthouse Dept. 10 YVONNE ESPERANZA CAMPOS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 12 DAVID M. SZUMOWSKI, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 14 SHARON B. MAJORS-LEWIS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 15 HOWARD H. SHORE, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 16 (available for assignment)
Main Courthouse Dept. 17 PETER L. GALLAGHER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 18 CHARLES R. GILL, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 19 AMALIA L. MEZA, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 20 DRUG COURT IN CHAMBERS
Main Courthouse Dept. 21 CRIMINAL GRAND JURY
Main Courthouse Dept. 22 LUIS R. VARGAS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 23 RUNSTON G. MAINO, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 25 JOSEPH P. BRANNIGAN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 26 FREDERIC L. LINK, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 27 LAURA H. PARSKY, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 28 DAVID M. GILL, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 29 LAURA W HALGREN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 30 DWAYNE K. MORING, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 31 EUGENIA A. EYHERABIDE, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 32 MELINDA J. LASATER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 33 JAY M. BLOOM, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 34 DESIREE A. BRUCE-LYLE, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 35 MARGIE G. WOODS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 36 KERRY WELLS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 37 JEFFREY F. FRASER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 38 PETER C DEDDEH, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 39 DAVID M. RUBIN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 40 GALE E. KANESHIRO, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 41 ROBERT C. LONGSTRETH, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 42 ADAM WERTHEIMER, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 43 PENNIE K. MCLAUGHLIN, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 44 KERI G. KATZ, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 45 PAULA ROSENSTEIN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 46 LISA C. SCHALL, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 47 RICHARD S. WHITNEY, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 48 CHARLES G. ROGERS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 49 LEO VALENTINE, JR., Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 50 MICHAEL T. SMYTH, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 51 JOAN P. WEBER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 52 WILLIAM R. NEVITT, JR., Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 53 FREDERICK MAGUIRE, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 54 LOUIS R. HANOIAN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 55 KENNETH K. SO, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 56 ROBERT F. O'NEILL, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 57 LISA A. FOSTER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 58 JOHN S. EINHORN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 59 (available for assignment)
Hall of Justice Dept. 69 JEFFREY B. BARTON, Judge Supervising, Civil
Hall of Justice Dept. 60 THOMAS P. NUGENT, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 61 JOHN S. MEYER, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 62 RONALD L. STYN, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 63 JOEL R WOHLFEIL, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 64 LORNA ALKSNE, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 65 JOAN M. LEWIS, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 66 JOEL M. PRESSMAN, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 67 WILLIAM S. DATO, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 68 JUDITH F. HAYES, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 70 RANDA TRAPP, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 71 RONALD S. PRAGER, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 72 TIMOTHY B. TAYLOR, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 73 STEVEN R. DENTON, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 74 KEVIN A. ENRIGHT, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 75 RICHARD E. L. STRAUSS, Judge
East County Dept. 14 EDDIE C. STURGEON, Judge Supervising, El
Cajon Court
East County Dept. 11 JOHN M. THOMPSON, Judge
East County Dept. 11 EDDIE C. STURGEON, Judge Supervising, El
Cajon Court
East County Dept. 1 LEE C. WITHAM, Commissioner
East County Dept. 2 CHARLES W. ERVIN, Judge
East County Dept. 3 PATRICIA GARCIA, Judge
East County Dept. 4 (available for assignment)
East County Dept. 5 ROBERT AMADOR, Judge
East County Dept. 6 STEVEN E. STONE, Judge
East County Dept. 7 DARLENE A. WHITE, Commissioner
East County Dept. 8 LANTZ LEWIS, Judge
East County Dept. 9 WILLIAM J. MCGRATH, Judge
East County Dept. 10 PATRICIA K. COOKSON, Judge
East County Dept. 12 ALLAN J. PRECKEL, Judge
East County Dept. 15 RONALD F. FRAZIER, Judge
East County Dept. 16 DANIEL B. GOLDSTEIN, Judge
East County Dept. 17 HERBERT J. EXARHOS, Judge
East County Dept. 18 GARY BUBIS, Judge
East County Dept. 19 ROGER W. KRAUEL, Judge
East County Dept. 20 (available for assignment)
East County Dept. 21 EVAN P. KIRVIN, Judge
South County Dept. 16 STEPHANIE SONTAG, Judge Supervising, South
Bay Court
South County Dept. 1 TRAFFIC, UNLAWFUL DETAINERS, SMALL
CLAIMS
South County Dept. 2 FRANCISCO P. MARTY, JR, Commissioner
South County Dept. 3 CRIMINAL
South County Dept. 4 FAMILY
South County Dept. 5 TERRIE E. ROBERTS, Commissioner
South County Dept. 6 RODERICK W. SHELTON, Judge
South County Dept. 7 TAMILA E. IPEMA, Judge
South County Dept. 8 ALVIN E. GREEN, JR., Judge
South County Dept. 9 FRANCIS M. DEVANEY, Judge
South County Dept. 10 EDWARD P. ALLARD III, Judge
South County Dept. 11 GARRY G. HAEHNLE, Judge
South County Dept. 12 KATHERINE A. BACAL, Judge
South County Dept. 14 THEODORE M. WEATHERS, Judge
South County Dept. 15 ANA L. ESPANA, Judge
South County Dept. 17 ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ, Judge
North County Dept. 24 K. MICHAEL KIRKMAN, Judge Supervising, North
County Court
North County Dept. 1 ADRIENNE A. ORFIELD, Judge
North County Dept. 2 RICHARD G. CLINE, Judge
North County Dept. 5 AARON H. KATZ, Judge
North County Dept. 6 DAVID BERRY, Judge
North County Dept. 8 ERNEST M. GROSS, Commissioner
North County Dept. 9 MICHAEL J. IMHOFF, Commissioner
North County Dept. 12 BLAINE K. BOWMAN, Judge
North County Dept. 14 MARSHALL Y. HOCKETT, Judge
North County Dept. 15 WILLIAM Y. WOOD, Commissioner
North County Dept. 16 HARRY L. POWAZEK, Judge
North County Dept. 17 DAVID G. BROWN, Judge
North County Dept. 18 KELLY C. DOWLAN, Commissioner
North County Dept. 19 PATTI C. RATEKIN, Commissioner
North County Dept. 20 ROBERT J. KEARNEY, Judge
North County Dept. 21 RICHARD E. MILLS, Judge
North County Dept. 22 KIMBERLEE A. LAGOTTA, Judge
North County Dept. 23 KATHLEEN M. LEWIS, Judge
North County Dept. 25 HARRY M. ELIAS, Judge
North County Dept. 26 SIM VON KALINOWSKI, Judge
North County Dept. 27 JACQUELINE M. STERN, Judge
North County Dept. 28 EARL H. MAAS III, Judge
North County Dept. 29 ROBERT P. DAHLQUIST, Judge
North County Dept. 30 GREGORY W. POLLACK, Judge
North County Dept. 31 TIMOTHY M. CASSERLY, Judge
North County Dept. 32 LARRY W. JONES, Commissioner
North County Dept. 33 DONALD F. ARMENTO, Commissioner
Family Dept. F5 MAUREEN F. HALLAHAN, Judge Supervising, Family
Court
Family Dept. F1 SUSAN D. HUGUENOR, Judge
Family Dept. F2 MARGO L. LEWIS, Judge
Family Dept. F3 CHRISTINE K. GOLDSMITH, Judge
Family Dept. F4 MICHAEL S. GROCH, Judge
Family Dept. F6 EDLENE C. MCKENZIE, Commissioner
Madge Bradley Dept. C1 (available for assignment)
Madge Bradley Dept. F8 GERALD C. JESSOP, Judge
Madge Bradley Dept. F9 WILLIAM H MCADAM, Judge
Madge Bradley Dept. PC1 JEFFREY S. BOSTWICK, Judge
Madge Bradley Dept. PC2 JULIA CRAIG KELETY, Judge
Extracted from San Diego Superior Court case management data 01:04AM 09 FEB
2013
Juvenile Dept. J1 CYNTHIA A. BASHANT, Judge Presiding, Juvenile
Juvenile Dept. J2 CAROLYN M. CAIETTI, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J3 (available for assignment)
Juvenile Dept. J4 BROWDER A. WILLIS III, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J5 CAROL ISACKSON, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J6 KENNETH J. MEDEL, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J7 CARLOS O. ARMOUR, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J8 RICHARD R. MONROY, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J9 DAVID B. OBERHOLTZER, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J10 POLLY H. SHAMOON, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J11 LAWRENCE KAPILOFF, Judge
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 1 SMALL CLAIMS
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 2 SMALL CLAIMS
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 3 TRAFFIC COURT
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 4 TRAFFIC COURT
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 5 (available for assignment)
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 6 (available for assignment)
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. A TRAFFIC COURT
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. B TRAFFIC COURT
Main Courthouse Dept. P ROBERT J. TRENTACOSTA, Judge Presiding
Main Courthouse Dept. 24 DAVID J. DANIELSEN, Judge Asst. Presiding
Main Courthouse Dept. 11 TIMOTHY R. WALSH, Judge Supervising,
Criminal
Main Courthouse Dept. 1 WILLIAM C. GENTRY, JR., Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 2 (available for assignment)
Main Courthouse Dept. 3 GARY KREEP, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 4 LAURA J. BIRKMEYER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 5 CINDY D. DAVIS, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 6 ALBERT T. HARUTUNIAN III, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 7 JAMES T. ATKINS, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 8 TRO/CIVIL HARASSMENT
Main Courthouse Dept. 9 TRO/CIVIL HARASSMENT
Main Courthouse Dept. 10 YVONNE ESPERANZA CAMPOS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 12 DAVID M. SZUMOWSKI, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 14 SHARON B. MAJORS-LEWIS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 15 HOWARD H. SHORE, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 16 (available for assignment)
Main Courthouse Dept. 17 PETER L. GALLAGHER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 18 CHARLES R. GILL, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 19 AMALIA L. MEZA, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 20 DRUG COURT IN CHAMBERS
Main Courthouse Dept. 21 CRIMINAL GRAND JURY
Main Courthouse Dept. 22 LUIS R. VARGAS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 23 RUNSTON G. MAINO, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 25 JOSEPH P. BRANNIGAN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 26 FREDERIC L. LINK, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 27 LAURA H. PARSKY, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 28 DAVID M. GILL, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 29 LAURA W HALGREN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 30 DWAYNE K. MORING, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 31 EUGENIA A. EYHERABIDE, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 32 MELINDA J. LASATER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 33 JAY M. BLOOM, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 34 DESIREE A. BRUCE-LYLE, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 35 MARGIE G. WOODS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 36 KERRY WELLS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 37 JEFFREY F. FRASER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 38 PETER C DEDDEH, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 39 DAVID M. RUBIN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 40 GALE E. KANESHIRO, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 41 ROBERT C. LONGSTRETH, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 42 ADAM WERTHEIMER, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 43 PENNIE K. MCLAUGHLIN, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 44 KERI G. KATZ, Commissioner
Main Courthouse Dept. 45 PAULA ROSENSTEIN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 46 LISA C. SCHALL, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 47 RICHARD S. WHITNEY, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 48 CHARLES G. ROGERS, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 49 LEO VALENTINE, JR., Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 50 MICHAEL T. SMYTH, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 51 JOAN P. WEBER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 52 WILLIAM R. NEVITT, JR., Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 53 FREDERICK MAGUIRE, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 54 LOUIS R. HANOIAN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 55 KENNETH K. SO, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 56 ROBERT F. O'NEILL, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 57 LISA A. FOSTER, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 58 JOHN S. EINHORN, Judge
Main Courthouse Dept. 59 (available for assignment)
Hall of Justice Dept. 69 JEFFREY B. BARTON, Judge Supervising, Civil
Hall of Justice Dept. 60 THOMAS P. NUGENT, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 61 JOHN S. MEYER, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 62 RONALD L. STYN, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 63 JOEL R WOHLFEIL, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 64 LORNA ALKSNE, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 65 JOAN M. LEWIS, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 66 JOEL M. PRESSMAN, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 67 WILLIAM S. DATO, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 68 JUDITH F. HAYES, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 70 RANDA TRAPP, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 71 RONALD S. PRAGER, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 72 TIMOTHY B. TAYLOR, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 73 STEVEN R. DENTON, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 74 KEVIN A. ENRIGHT, Judge
Hall of Justice Dept. 75 RICHARD E. L. STRAUSS, Judge
East County Dept. 14 EDDIE C. STURGEON, Judge Supervising, El
Cajon Court
East County Dept. 11 JOHN M. THOMPSON, Judge
East County Dept. 11 EDDIE C. STURGEON, Judge Supervising, El
Cajon Court
East County Dept. 1 LEE C. WITHAM, Commissioner
East County Dept. 2 CHARLES W. ERVIN, Judge
East County Dept. 3 PATRICIA GARCIA, Judge
East County Dept. 4 (available for assignment)
East County Dept. 5 ROBERT AMADOR, Judge
East County Dept. 6 STEVEN E. STONE, Judge
East County Dept. 7 DARLENE A. WHITE, Commissioner
East County Dept. 8 LANTZ LEWIS, Judge
East County Dept. 9 WILLIAM J. MCGRATH, Judge
East County Dept. 10 PATRICIA K. COOKSON, Judge
East County Dept. 12 ALLAN J. PRECKEL, Judge
East County Dept. 15 RONALD F. FRAZIER, Judge
East County Dept. 16 DANIEL B. GOLDSTEIN, Judge
East County Dept. 17 HERBERT J. EXARHOS, Judge
East County Dept. 18 GARY BUBIS, Judge
East County Dept. 19 ROGER W. KRAUEL, Judge
East County Dept. 20 (available for assignment)
East County Dept. 21 EVAN P. KIRVIN, Judge
South County Dept. 16 STEPHANIE SONTAG, Judge Supervising, South
Bay Court
South County Dept. 1 TRAFFIC, UNLAWFUL DETAINERS, SMALL
CLAIMS
South County Dept. 2 FRANCISCO P. MARTY, JR, Commissioner
South County Dept. 3 CRIMINAL
South County Dept. 4 FAMILY
South County Dept. 5 TERRIE E. ROBERTS, Commissioner
South County Dept. 6 RODERICK W. SHELTON, Judge
South County Dept. 7 TAMILA E. IPEMA, Judge
South County Dept. 8 ALVIN E. GREEN, JR., Judge
South County Dept. 9 FRANCIS M. DEVANEY, Judge
South County Dept. 10 EDWARD P. ALLARD III, Judge
South County Dept. 11 GARRY G. HAEHNLE, Judge
South County Dept. 12 KATHERINE A. BACAL, Judge
South County Dept. 14 THEODORE M. WEATHERS, Judge
South County Dept. 15 ANA L. ESPANA, Judge
South County Dept. 17 ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ, Judge
North County Dept. 24 K. MICHAEL KIRKMAN, Judge Supervising, North
County Court
North County Dept. 1 ADRIENNE A. ORFIELD, Judge
North County Dept. 2 RICHARD G. CLINE, Judge
North County Dept. 5 AARON H. KATZ, Judge
North County Dept. 6 DAVID BERRY, Judge
North County Dept. 8 ERNEST M. GROSS, Commissioner
North County Dept. 9 MICHAEL J. IMHOFF, Commissioner
North County Dept. 12 BLAINE K. BOWMAN, Judge
North County Dept. 14 MARSHALL Y. HOCKETT, Judge
North County Dept. 15 WILLIAM Y. WOOD, Commissioner
North County Dept. 16 HARRY L. POWAZEK, Judge
North County Dept. 17 DAVID G. BROWN, Judge
North County Dept. 18 KELLY C. DOWLAN, Commissioner
North County Dept. 19 PATTI C. RATEKIN, Commissioner
North County Dept. 20 ROBERT J. KEARNEY, Judge
North County Dept. 21 RICHARD E. MILLS, Judge
North County Dept. 22 KIMBERLEE A. LAGOTTA, Judge
North County Dept. 23 KATHLEEN M. LEWIS, Judge
North County Dept. 25 HARRY M. ELIAS, Judge
North County Dept. 26 SIM VON KALINOWSKI, Judge
North County Dept. 27 JACQUELINE M. STERN, Judge
North County Dept. 28 EARL H. MAAS III, Judge
North County Dept. 29 ROBERT P. DAHLQUIST, Judge
North County Dept. 30 GREGORY W. POLLACK, Judge
North County Dept. 31 TIMOTHY M. CASSERLY, Judge
North County Dept. 32 LARRY W. JONES, Commissioner
North County Dept. 33 DONALD F. ARMENTO, Commissioner
Family Dept. F5 MAUREEN F. HALLAHAN, Judge Supervising, Family
Court
Family Dept. F1 SUSAN D. HUGUENOR, Judge
Family Dept. F2 MARGO L. LEWIS, Judge
Family Dept. F3 CHRISTINE K. GOLDSMITH, Judge
Family Dept. F4 MICHAEL S. GROCH, Judge
Family Dept. F6 EDLENE C. MCKENZIE, Commissioner
Madge Bradley Dept. C1 (available for assignment)
Madge Bradley Dept. F8 GERALD C. JESSOP, Judge
Madge Bradley Dept. F9 WILLIAM H MCADAM, Judge
Madge Bradley Dept. PC1 JEFFREY S. BOSTWICK, Judge
Madge Bradley Dept. PC2 JULIA CRAIG KELETY, Judge
Extracted from San Diego Superior Court case management data 01:04AM 09 FEB
2013
Juvenile Dept. J1 CYNTHIA A. BASHANT, Judge Presiding, Juvenile
Juvenile Dept. J2 CAROLYN M. CAIETTI, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J3 (available for assignment)
Juvenile Dept. J4 BROWDER A. WILLIS III, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J5 CAROL ISACKSON, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J6 KENNETH J. MEDEL, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J7 CARLOS O. ARMOUR, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J8 RICHARD R. MONROY, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J9 DAVID B. OBERHOLTZER, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J10 POLLY H. SHAMOON, Judge
Juvenile Dept. J11 LAWRENCE KAPILOFF, Judge
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 1 SMALL CLAIMS
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 2 SMALL CLAIMS
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 3 TRAFFIC COURT
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 4 TRAFFIC COURT
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 5 (available for assignment)
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. 6 (available for assignment)
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. A TRAFFIC COURT
Kearny Mesa Facility Dept. B TRAFFIC COURT
SD Superior Court
administration Michael C. Roddy
administration Michael C. Roddy
Smart Voter
March 5, 2002 Election
Judicial Contests
for San Diego County, CA
County Results as of Mar 29
3:30pm, 100.0% of Precincts
Reporting (1725/1725)
33.4% Countywide Voter
Turnout (452740/1355756)
Statewide Results as of Apr
10 12:24pm, 100% of
Precincts Reporting
(22976/22976)
34.5% Statewide Voter
Turnout
(5,285,587/15,280,808)
Judicial
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 17
Michael T. Smyth ..........
219032 votes 63.5%
Alvin Mark Gomez ..........
125732 votes 36.4%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 29
Jeff Bostwick .......... 219835
votes 66.3%
Olivia J. Gilliam .......... 111661
votes 33.6%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 30
Geary D. Cortes ..........
137997 votes 42.4%
Richard Whitney ..........
135885 votes 41.8%
David W. Tiffany ..........
51018 votes 15.7%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 49
Dan Goldstein .......... 178694
votes 54.1%
Gary Bloch .......... 151225
votes 45.8%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 50
Peter Gallagher ..........
264372 votes 100.0%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 52
Lisa Guy-Schall ..........
286779 votes 100.0%
Cancelled Contests not on the
Ballot
The following elected offices
are not on the ballot because
an insufficient number of
candidates applied. All
candidates that file win since
they are uncontested.
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 1 (1
Elected)
Larry Stirling
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 2 (1
Elected)
Wesley R. Mason, III
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 3 (1
Elected)
Louis R. Hanoian
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 4 (1
Elected)
John L. Davidson
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 5 (1
Elected)
Richard E.L. Strauss
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 6 (1
Elected)
Janet Kintner, I
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 7 (1
Elected)
Charles R. Gill
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 8 (1
Elected)
Joan K. Irion
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 9 (1
Elected)
Cynthia Bashant
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 10 (1
Elected)
William H. Kennedy
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 11 (1
Elected)
William R. Nevitt, Jr.
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 12 (1
Elected)
Timothy M. Casserly
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 13 (1
Elected)
John S. Meyer
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 14 (1
Elected)
Jesus Rodriguez
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 15 (1
Elected)
Janis Sammartino
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 16 (1
Elected)
Ronald S. Prager
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 18 (1
Elected)
Browder A. Willis
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 19 (1
Elected)
William D. Mudd
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 20 (1
Elected)
David William Ryan
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 21 (1
Elected)
Thomas Oliver La Voy
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 22 (1
Elected)
Alvin Ellis Green
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 23 (1
Elected)
Carol Isackson
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 24 (1
Elected)
Steven R. Denton
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 25 (1
Elected)
Linda B. Quinn
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 26 (1
Elected)
Marshall York Hockett
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 27 (1
Elected)
Philip Doane Sharp
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 28 (1
Elected)
John S. Einhorn
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 31 (1
Elected)
Judith F. Hayes
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 32 (1
Elected)
Eddie C. Sturgeon
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 33 (1
Elected)
Ronald L. Styn
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 34 (1
Elected)
E. Mac Amos, Jr.
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 35 (1
Elected)
Jeffrey B. Barton
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 36 (1
Elected)
David J. Danielsen
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 37 (1
Elected)
Robert J. Trentacosta
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 38 (1
Elected)
Richard G. Cline
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 39 (1
Elected)
Victor E. Bianchini
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 40 (1
Elected)
Margie Gunthardt Woods
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 41 (1
Elected)
Michael D. Wellington
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 42 (1
Elected)
Raymond Edwards, Jr.
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 43 (1
Elected)
Jacqueline M. Stern
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 44 (1
Elected)
Harry M. Elias
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 45 (1
Elected)
David M. Gill
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 46 (1
Elected)
Timothy W. Tower
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 47 (1
Elected)
Carol C. Lam
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 48 (1
Elected)
Christine Vetter Pate
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 51 (1
Elected)
David M. Szumowski
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 53 (1
Elected)
Terry Scott
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 54 (1
Elected)
Desiree Alexandra Bruce-Lyle
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 55 (1
Elected)
Frederic L. Link
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 56 (1
Elected)
Edward B. Huntington
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 57 (1
Elected)
Esteban Hernandez
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 58 (1
Elected)
Howard Harris Shore
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 59 (1
Elected)
Laura W. Halgren
March 5, 2002 Election
Judicial Contests
for San Diego County, CA
County Results as of Mar 29
3:30pm, 100.0% of Precincts
Reporting (1725/1725)
33.4% Countywide Voter
Turnout (452740/1355756)
Statewide Results as of Apr
10 12:24pm, 100% of
Precincts Reporting
(22976/22976)
34.5% Statewide Voter
Turnout
(5,285,587/15,280,808)
Judicial
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 17
Michael T. Smyth ..........
219032 votes 63.5%
Alvin Mark Gomez ..........
125732 votes 36.4%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 29
Jeff Bostwick .......... 219835
votes 66.3%
Olivia J. Gilliam .......... 111661
votes 33.6%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 30
Geary D. Cortes ..........
137997 votes 42.4%
Richard Whitney ..........
135885 votes 41.8%
David W. Tiffany ..........
51018 votes 15.7%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 49
Dan Goldstein .......... 178694
votes 54.1%
Gary Bloch .......... 151225
votes 45.8%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 50
Peter Gallagher ..........
264372 votes 100.0%
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 52
Lisa Guy-Schall ..........
286779 votes 100.0%
Cancelled Contests not on the
Ballot
The following elected offices
are not on the ballot because
an insufficient number of
candidates applied. All
candidates that file win since
they are uncontested.
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 1 (1
Elected)
Larry Stirling
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 2 (1
Elected)
Wesley R. Mason, III
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 3 (1
Elected)
Louis R. Hanoian
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 4 (1
Elected)
John L. Davidson
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 5 (1
Elected)
Richard E.L. Strauss
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 6 (1
Elected)
Janet Kintner, I
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 7 (1
Elected)
Charles R. Gill
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 8 (1
Elected)
Joan K. Irion
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 9 (1
Elected)
Cynthia Bashant
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 10 (1
Elected)
William H. Kennedy
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 11 (1
Elected)
William R. Nevitt, Jr.
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 12 (1
Elected)
Timothy M. Casserly
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 13 (1
Elected)
John S. Meyer
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 14 (1
Elected)
Jesus Rodriguez
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 15 (1
Elected)
Janis Sammartino
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 16 (1
Elected)
Ronald S. Prager
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 18 (1
Elected)
Browder A. Willis
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 19 (1
Elected)
William D. Mudd
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 20 (1
Elected)
David William Ryan
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 21 (1
Elected)
Thomas Oliver La Voy
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 22 (1
Elected)
Alvin Ellis Green
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 23 (1
Elected)
Carol Isackson
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 24 (1
Elected)
Steven R. Denton
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 25 (1
Elected)
Linda B. Quinn
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 26 (1
Elected)
Marshall York Hockett
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 27 (1
Elected)
Philip Doane Sharp
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 28 (1
Elected)
John S. Einhorn
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 31 (1
Elected)
Judith F. Hayes
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 32 (1
Elected)
Eddie C. Sturgeon
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 33 (1
Elected)
Ronald L. Styn
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 34 (1
Elected)
E. Mac Amos, Jr.
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 35 (1
Elected)
Jeffrey B. Barton
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 36 (1
Elected)
David J. Danielsen
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 37 (1
Elected)
Robert J. Trentacosta
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 38 (1
Elected)
Richard G. Cline
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 39 (1
Elected)
Victor E. Bianchini
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 40 (1
Elected)
Margie Gunthardt Woods
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 41 (1
Elected)
Michael D. Wellington
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 42 (1
Elected)
Raymond Edwards, Jr.
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 43 (1
Elected)
Jacqueline M. Stern
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 44 (1
Elected)
Harry M. Elias
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 45 (1
Elected)
David M. Gill
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 46 (1
Elected)
Timothy W. Tower
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 47 (1
Elected)
Carol C. Lam
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 48 (1
Elected)
Christine Vetter Pate
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 51 (1
Elected)
David M. Szumowski
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 53 (1
Elected)
Terry Scott
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 54 (1
Elected)
Desiree Alexandra Bruce-Lyle
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 55 (1
Elected)
Frederic L. Link
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 56 (1
Elected)
Edward B. Huntington
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 57 (1
Elected)
Esteban Hernandez
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 58 (1
Elected)
Howard Harris Shore
Superior Court Judge; County
of San Diego; Office 59 (1
Elected)
Laura W. Halgren
| April 2014 |
Is the public served when attorneys
and litigants do favors for judges?
Let's take the politics out of choosing
judges
See also: Chief Justice John Roberts: Judge Brent Benjamin doesn't have to
recuse himself just because of a measly $3 million campaign contribution
Electing judges is a bad idea, but appointing judges is almost as bad. Why not
create a pool of highly-rated attorneys, created by the Bar Association (we don't
want to eliminate politics completely, right?), and then use a lottery to choose
judges from that pool as positions become available?
Seriously, why not? The only reason not to do this is to keep politics in the
courtroom...
and litigants do favors for judges?
Let's take the politics out of choosing
judges
See also: Chief Justice John Roberts: Judge Brent Benjamin doesn't have to
recuse himself just because of a measly $3 million campaign contribution
Electing judges is a bad idea, but appointing judges is almost as bad. Why not
create a pool of highly-rated attorneys, created by the Bar Association (we don't
want to eliminate politics completely, right?), and then use a lottery to choose
judges from that pool as positions become available?
Seriously, why not? The only reason not to do this is to keep politics in the
courtroom...
Judicial
Appointments May
Open Up
By: WILL CARLESS
April 21, 2008
Back in February, I wrote this
story about the secret world
of judicial appointments.
A new bill currently making its
way through the California
Legislature is taking aim at
the secrecy of the judicial
nomination process. A hat-tip
to Donna Frye for pointing
out the legislation to me.
First a re-cap:
I wrote the story in February
because there were rumors
flying around that Bill Gentry,
once a candidate for city
attorney, had been offered a
judgeship in order to get out
of the race and clear the way
for Jan Goldsmith,
considered by many a
stronger Republican
candidate.
I wanted to look into Gentry’s
appointment process, to
figure out if there was any
truth to the rumors. What I
discovered was that one can
find out very little about the
reasoning behind a governor’
s choice for a judicial
appointment. Basically, the
whole process is shrouded in
the sort of secrecy that
reminded me a lot of some of
the archaic legal processes
of England where I attended
law school.
Under the current system,
the governor doesn’t have to
tell anyone why he or she
has made a judicial
appointment. Each judicial
nominee is vetted by a group
called the Commission on
Judicial Nominees
Evaluation, commonly known
as the JNE Commission, but
the governor isn’t at all
beholden to the commission’
s decision.
Essentially, the governor
appoints whomever he or
she wants.
The governor does,
however, via his or her
judicial appointments
secretary, do some
information gathering on
each judicial nominee. As I
pointed out in my story:
The Governor’s Office sends
each application to a
committee in San Diego, the
Judicial Selection Advisory
Committee. The identity of
the members of that group is
secret, as is the number of
people on the committee and
the process by which they
assess the applications sent
to them. A number of
members of the local legal
and political communities
said District Attorney Bonnie
Dumanis is a member of the
committee, but the Governor’
s Office would not answer
any questions about the
group.
One part of the new bill takes
aim at this secrecy. A wordy
amendment to section
12011.5 of the Government
Code would require the
governor to:
collect and release the
names of all persons who
have been provided judicial
application materials or
related documentation on
one of more judicial applicant
I called Bill Kopeny, the
current chair of the JNE
Commission, and asked him
what he thinks of the bill.
Kopeny said he doubts that
section of the bill will get
through the Governor’s
Office. He foresees a veto.
And he wasn’t sure of he
agreed with the concept of,
as he put it, “corralling the
work of consultants to the
executive office.”
“This is an effort, a stab in
the dark, at trying to require
transparency of a process
which is traditionally within
the executive branch of the
government,” Kopeny said.
And Kopeny said the wording
of the bill leaves plenty of
room for secrecy and back-
room dealing in the whole
judicial appointments
process. The legislation only
takes aim at people who
have been provided with
documentation — i.e. people
who the governor’s office
sends questionnaires or
requests for references.
In reality, the gathering of
information on potential
judges doesn’t work like that,
Kopeny said. The governor’s
judicial appointments
secretary routinely calls
influential lawyers in different
jurisdictions to collect
information on potential
judges, he said.
Kopeny said that’s the way
things should be, and said
he thinks the current judicial
appointments secretary is
doing a great job.
“I don’t think there’s a clear
answer as to whether it’s a
good idea, but the bottom
line is that I’m not even sure
if it’s legal and I’m not sure if
it’s necessary,” Kopeny said.
Appointments May
Open Up
By: WILL CARLESS
April 21, 2008
Back in February, I wrote this
story about the secret world
of judicial appointments.
A new bill currently making its
way through the California
Legislature is taking aim at
the secrecy of the judicial
nomination process. A hat-tip
to Donna Frye for pointing
out the legislation to me.
First a re-cap:
I wrote the story in February
because there were rumors
flying around that Bill Gentry,
once a candidate for city
attorney, had been offered a
judgeship in order to get out
of the race and clear the way
for Jan Goldsmith,
considered by many a
stronger Republican
candidate.
I wanted to look into Gentry’s
appointment process, to
figure out if there was any
truth to the rumors. What I
discovered was that one can
find out very little about the
reasoning behind a governor’
s choice for a judicial
appointment. Basically, the
whole process is shrouded in
the sort of secrecy that
reminded me a lot of some of
the archaic legal processes
of England where I attended
law school.
Under the current system,
the governor doesn’t have to
tell anyone why he or she
has made a judicial
appointment. Each judicial
nominee is vetted by a group
called the Commission on
Judicial Nominees
Evaluation, commonly known
as the JNE Commission, but
the governor isn’t at all
beholden to the commission’
s decision.
Essentially, the governor
appoints whomever he or
she wants.
The governor does,
however, via his or her
judicial appointments
secretary, do some
information gathering on
each judicial nominee. As I
pointed out in my story:
The Governor’s Office sends
each application to a
committee in San Diego, the
Judicial Selection Advisory
Committee. The identity of
the members of that group is
secret, as is the number of
people on the committee and
the process by which they
assess the applications sent
to them. A number of
members of the local legal
and political communities
said District Attorney Bonnie
Dumanis is a member of the
committee, but the Governor’
s Office would not answer
any questions about the
group.
One part of the new bill takes
aim at this secrecy. A wordy
amendment to section
12011.5 of the Government
Code would require the
governor to:
collect and release the
names of all persons who
have been provided judicial
application materials or
related documentation on
one of more judicial applicant
I called Bill Kopeny, the
current chair of the JNE
Commission, and asked him
what he thinks of the bill.
Kopeny said he doubts that
section of the bill will get
through the Governor’s
Office. He foresees a veto.
And he wasn’t sure of he
agreed with the concept of,
as he put it, “corralling the
work of consultants to the
executive office.”
“This is an effort, a stab in
the dark, at trying to require
transparency of a process
which is traditionally within
the executive branch of the
government,” Kopeny said.
And Kopeny said the wording
of the bill leaves plenty of
room for secrecy and back-
room dealing in the whole
judicial appointments
process. The legislation only
takes aim at people who
have been provided with
documentation — i.e. people
who the governor’s office
sends questionnaires or
requests for references.
In reality, the gathering of
information on potential
judges doesn’t work like that,
Kopeny said. The governor’s
judicial appointments
secretary routinely calls
influential lawyers in different
jurisdictions to collect
information on potential
judges, he said.
Kopeny said that’s the way
things should be, and said
he thinks the current judicial
appointments secretary is
doing a great job.
“I don’t think there’s a clear
answer as to whether it’s a
good idea, but the bottom
line is that I’m not even sure
if it’s legal and I’m not sure if
it’s necessary,” Kopeny said.
Posts re electing judges
(from Role Model Lawyers blog)
(from Role Model Lawyers blog)
| News, information and ideas about our education system, courts and health care by Maura Larkins |
The problem
with electing
judges
Posts re electing judges
(from Role Model Lawyers
blog)
American Judicature Society
Judicial Selection Reform
.
In recent years, proposals
have been introduced by
legislators, governors, courts,
and citizens' groups in nearly
every state to limit the role of
politics in the selection of state
judges.
The extent of these activities
underscores the recognition
that an independent judiciary
is essential to the
maintenance of public trust
and confidence in the court
system.
The American Judicature
Society, through funding from
the Open Society Institute, has
contributed to these efforts by
compiling comprehensive
information on judicial
selection processes in each of
the fifty states and the District
of Columbia. Topics covered
include methods of selecting,
retaining, and removing of
judges; successful and
unsuccessful reform efforts;
the roles of parties, interest
groups, and professional
organizations in selecting
judges; and the diversity of the
bench.
judicialselection.us
His 'Crime' Results in a Gain for the Public :
Whistle-blower: State employees who report
misconduct should not do so at risk of being fired.
June 29, 1994
by Ruth Rosen, a professor of history at UC Davis, writes regularly on
political culture
LA Times
Do state employees owe greater allegiance to a corrupt public
agency than to the people of California, whom they actually serve?
If so, that is why John Plotz, a veteran attorney for the California
Commission on Judicial Performance, is locked out of his office and
threatened with termination. His "crime" is that he criticized the
commission to a friend, thereby instigating legislation that would hold
California judges accountable to judicial ethics.
As a result, California's courts will be more just. But justice also
demands that Plotz be reinstated.
The Commission on Judicial Performance, a little-known state
agency, is mandated by the California Constitution to expose
judicial misconduct and to remove corrupt, dishonest and
grossly incompetent judges.
Unfortunately, the commission in recent years has failed
dismally.
As one of several investigators, Plotz was
positioned to observe the commission's leniency
toward judicial misconduct and incompetence.
Some of the cases he witnessed included
receipt of gifts from lawyers and litigants
appearing before a judge,
sexual harassment of court employees,
destruction of evidence,
arbitrary jailings of lawyers or litigants
and gross abuse of ordinary citizens.
Plotz's observations have been substantiated by others. Prof.
Stephen Barnett of the UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, an
expert on the state's judicial system, has said that the commission's
"name should be changed to the 'Commission for Judicial Protection.'
" A three-month investigation by the San Francisco Chronicle
recently disclosed that the panel has not voted to publicly censure or
remove a single judge since 1988. Yet during the nine previous
years, 19 judges were censured or removed from office.
California trails the nation in disciplining wayward judges. Since 1980,
the commission has removed less than half the national average. (It
would be naive to assume that California judges differ that much from
their peers.) Gerald Stern, the head of New York's counterpart
commission, notes that "At our annual national meetings, we mock
our California colleagues . . . . I don't understand how their
commission can let some of those cases go as private
admonishments."
Without disclosing any confidential information, Plotz discussed his
concerns with a friend, Peter G. Keane, chief attorney of the San
Francisco public defender's office and a member of the State Bar
board of governors. Keane then wrote an article in which he
recommended three substantive reforms: open disciplinary hearings
of judges, add more non-judges to the panel and give the
commission the authority to make its own rules.
The Legislature agreed with these reforms. Sen. Alfred Alquist (D-
San Jose) introduced the most comprehensive measure, which has
now passed committees in both the Assembly and Senate.
But what of John Plotz?
For his efforts, Plotz--whose file reveals a six-year unblemished,
exemplary record--was subjected to a disciplinary interrogation. The
commission's position is that its employees have no right to criticize
the agency outside the agency. Commission Director Victoria Henley
threatened to fire Plotz if he did not reveal the substance of all his
conversations with Keane. (Astonishingly, she cited McCarthy-era
cases in which teachers were forced to disclose whether they had
been members of the Communist Party.) Plotz received a disciplinary
reprimand. Unwilling to be quietly fired, he informed the Legislature of
the reprimand. Henley then placed him on indefinite "administrative
leave."
Ostensibly, the charge against Plotz is that he has violated the
attorney-client privilege by informing the Legislature of his reprimand.
This is a preposterous charge, for who was the client? Having
betrayed no confidential information, Plotz rightfully claims his legal
right to freedom of speech, as well as his moral obligation to protect
the people of California from judicial misconduct.
This case may create an important precedent for state employees. If,
as a public employee, I observe gross corruption and misconduct
within my institution, do I owe allegiance to corrupt superiors or to the
people of California who pay my salary?
The answer is clear. John Plotz should be honored, not punished.
With integrity and courage, he has tried to ensure that justice is more
than just a seven-letter word. And he has succeeded.
San Diego Judicial Races: Local Lawyers Raise
Money & Red Flags
May 12, 2016
Katy's Exposure
...John Plotz wrote:
I used to work for the Commission on Judicial Performance….
I was sent to investigate allegations that a number of San Diego
judges had received generous gifts from lawyers. Were the
allegations true? Sure. It was a matter of public record. Judges
reported expensive golf dates, health club memberships, dinners and
banquets…(Later we discovered more — but so much was known to
everyone.)
No harm in that I was told. The local bench and bar had always
enjoyed a close relationship…what could be more natural than
lawyers inviting their former colleagues, now elevated to the bench to
friendly harbor cruises, the Super Bowl or weekend
condiminium…Did the gift-givers appear in court before the gift-
takers? You bet. And not only did the appear, but the did very nicely,
thank you….Was there a relationship between the gifts and the
rulings? The question is naive. When a judge accepts gifts from
lawyers there is no need for a payoff in any particular case. The
parties have established a climate of mutual esteem and of mutual
help that rises about mere payoffs….
I do say that the corruption of Greer, Adams and Malkus flourished in
the soil of San Diego.
Their corruption was not a strange anomaly – a rare
bad apple – but the natural outgrowth of the San
Diego judicial ethic….There was a smugness among
the San Diego judicial elite, an oozing complacency
that encouraged corruption. The judges defined a
moral order by their own small measure, mistaking
their private wishes and interests for the interests of
the citizens they were suppose to serve.
Lawyers flattered them and gave them gifts. All was right in the
world.
The self-satisfaction was so preposterous that it might have seemed
comical to an outsider like me. But I did not find it comical. It created
an atmosphere where self-deceit and lies grew in
profusion….When I interviewed clerks and junior
lawyers – the little people who had to breathe that
atmosphere every day — they told me of fear – fear of
retribution if they told what they really knew. I heard
the same from some judges who were not in the inner
circle.
Greer and others were not merely crooks and liars, they were
bullies. And they had the weight of the legal establishment behind
them, both bench and bar…
When a union official gives a judge $300 in an envelope they
call it “graft”.
When a silver-haired senior partner gives a judge $300 in free
legal services they call it “professional courtesy”. But friends,
remember these are our courts and our judges. So let’s not fool
ourselves or allow others to fool us. Graft is graft. And San Diego,
that small town – that small clean town – has enough to go around...
Whistle-blower: State employees who report
misconduct should not do so at risk of being fired.
June 29, 1994
by Ruth Rosen, a professor of history at UC Davis, writes regularly on
political culture
LA Times
Do state employees owe greater allegiance to a corrupt public
agency than to the people of California, whom they actually serve?
If so, that is why John Plotz, a veteran attorney for the California
Commission on Judicial Performance, is locked out of his office and
threatened with termination. His "crime" is that he criticized the
commission to a friend, thereby instigating legislation that would hold
California judges accountable to judicial ethics.
As a result, California's courts will be more just. But justice also
demands that Plotz be reinstated.
The Commission on Judicial Performance, a little-known state
agency, is mandated by the California Constitution to expose
judicial misconduct and to remove corrupt, dishonest and
grossly incompetent judges.
Unfortunately, the commission in recent years has failed
dismally.
As one of several investigators, Plotz was
positioned to observe the commission's leniency
toward judicial misconduct and incompetence.
Some of the cases he witnessed included
receipt of gifts from lawyers and litigants
appearing before a judge,
sexual harassment of court employees,
destruction of evidence,
arbitrary jailings of lawyers or litigants
and gross abuse of ordinary citizens.
Plotz's observations have been substantiated by others. Prof.
Stephen Barnett of the UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, an
expert on the state's judicial system, has said that the commission's
"name should be changed to the 'Commission for Judicial Protection.'
" A three-month investigation by the San Francisco Chronicle
recently disclosed that the panel has not voted to publicly censure or
remove a single judge since 1988. Yet during the nine previous
years, 19 judges were censured or removed from office.
California trails the nation in disciplining wayward judges. Since 1980,
the commission has removed less than half the national average. (It
would be naive to assume that California judges differ that much from
their peers.) Gerald Stern, the head of New York's counterpart
commission, notes that "At our annual national meetings, we mock
our California colleagues . . . . I don't understand how their
commission can let some of those cases go as private
admonishments."
Without disclosing any confidential information, Plotz discussed his
concerns with a friend, Peter G. Keane, chief attorney of the San
Francisco public defender's office and a member of the State Bar
board of governors. Keane then wrote an article in which he
recommended three substantive reforms: open disciplinary hearings
of judges, add more non-judges to the panel and give the
commission the authority to make its own rules.
The Legislature agreed with these reforms. Sen. Alfred Alquist (D-
San Jose) introduced the most comprehensive measure, which has
now passed committees in both the Assembly and Senate.
But what of John Plotz?
For his efforts, Plotz--whose file reveals a six-year unblemished,
exemplary record--was subjected to a disciplinary interrogation. The
commission's position is that its employees have no right to criticize
the agency outside the agency. Commission Director Victoria Henley
threatened to fire Plotz if he did not reveal the substance of all his
conversations with Keane. (Astonishingly, she cited McCarthy-era
cases in which teachers were forced to disclose whether they had
been members of the Communist Party.) Plotz received a disciplinary
reprimand. Unwilling to be quietly fired, he informed the Legislature of
the reprimand. Henley then placed him on indefinite "administrative
leave."
Ostensibly, the charge against Plotz is that he has violated the
attorney-client privilege by informing the Legislature of his reprimand.
This is a preposterous charge, for who was the client? Having
betrayed no confidential information, Plotz rightfully claims his legal
right to freedom of speech, as well as his moral obligation to protect
the people of California from judicial misconduct.
This case may create an important precedent for state employees. If,
as a public employee, I observe gross corruption and misconduct
within my institution, do I owe allegiance to corrupt superiors or to the
people of California who pay my salary?
The answer is clear. John Plotz should be honored, not punished.
With integrity and courage, he has tried to ensure that justice is more
than just a seven-letter word. And he has succeeded.
San Diego Judicial Races: Local Lawyers Raise
Money & Red Flags
May 12, 2016
Katy's Exposure
...John Plotz wrote:
I used to work for the Commission on Judicial Performance….
I was sent to investigate allegations that a number of San Diego
judges had received generous gifts from lawyers. Were the
allegations true? Sure. It was a matter of public record. Judges
reported expensive golf dates, health club memberships, dinners and
banquets…(Later we discovered more — but so much was known to
everyone.)
No harm in that I was told. The local bench and bar had always
enjoyed a close relationship…what could be more natural than
lawyers inviting their former colleagues, now elevated to the bench to
friendly harbor cruises, the Super Bowl or weekend
condiminium…Did the gift-givers appear in court before the gift-
takers? You bet. And not only did the appear, but the did very nicely,
thank you….Was there a relationship between the gifts and the
rulings? The question is naive. When a judge accepts gifts from
lawyers there is no need for a payoff in any particular case. The
parties have established a climate of mutual esteem and of mutual
help that rises about mere payoffs….
I do say that the corruption of Greer, Adams and Malkus flourished in
the soil of San Diego.
Their corruption was not a strange anomaly – a rare
bad apple – but the natural outgrowth of the San
Diego judicial ethic….There was a smugness among
the San Diego judicial elite, an oozing complacency
that encouraged corruption. The judges defined a
moral order by their own small measure, mistaking
their private wishes and interests for the interests of
the citizens they were suppose to serve.
Lawyers flattered them and gave them gifts. All was right in the
world.
The self-satisfaction was so preposterous that it might have seemed
comical to an outsider like me. But I did not find it comical. It created
an atmosphere where self-deceit and lies grew in
profusion….When I interviewed clerks and junior
lawyers – the little people who had to breathe that
atmosphere every day — they told me of fear – fear of
retribution if they told what they really knew. I heard
the same from some judges who were not in the inner
circle.
Greer and others were not merely crooks and liars, they were
bullies. And they had the weight of the legal establishment behind
them, both bench and bar…
When a union official gives a judge $300 in an envelope they
call it “graft”.
When a silver-haired senior partner gives a judge $300 in free
legal services they call it “professional courtesy”. But friends,
remember these are our courts and our judges. So let’s not fool
ourselves or allow others to fool us. Graft is graft. And San Diego,
that small town – that small clean town – has enough to go around...