DOCSLIB.ORG

2016 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2016 Annual Report STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2016 ANNUAL REPORT 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400 San Francisco, California 94102 (415) 557-1200 http://cjp.ca.gov INTRODUCTION The Commission on Judicial Performance, the frst judicial disciplinary body of its kind, was established by legislative constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1960 as an independent state agency. The commission’s mandate has always been threefold: to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confdence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system. The composition of the commission’s membership—six public members, two attorneys, one appellate court justice and two superior court judges—brings a diverse set of viewpoints to ensure that the perspectives of the judiciary, the legal community and the public are considered in determining the outcome of any particular case. While the vast majority of California judges are committed to maintaining the high standards expected of the judiciary, an effective method of disciplining judges who engage in misconduct is essential to the functioning of our judicial system. The commission’s proceedings provide a fair and appropriate mechanism to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Some have expressed frustration because not all of the commission’s work and deliberations are made public. While some aspects of the disciplinary process and the commission’s work have become more open over the years, California voters have consistently allowed for confdentiality in recognition of the important interests it protects. Confdentiality encourages complainants and witnesses to come forward without fear of reprisal or possible retribution while also protecting a judge’s reputation and the integrity of the judicial process from unwarranted and frivolous complaints. In 2016, the commission received a grant from the State Justice Institute to help establish a mentoring program for judges where an investigation has identifed problematic treatment of litigants and others appearing before the judge. The program has begun as a pilot program in Northern California. An eligible judge who elects to participate will work for up to two years with a mentor judge who has been trained from a curriculum designed by other judges, ethicists and a counselor. The judge’s success or lack of success in completing the program will be taken into consideration by the commission in determining the appropriate disposition of the matter. Should problems reoccur, the commission may take into consideration that the judge was previously given the opportunity to participate in the mentoring program. Poor judicial demeanor is one of the most common complaints to the commission and most frequently disciplined conduct, yet is rarely suffciently serious to warrant removal of a judge from offce. When removal is ordered, it is often after a succession of disciplinary sanctions that have been to no avail. The commission believes that a mentoring program, supplemented with educational and other resources for skills development, might effectively and effciently foster changed behavior in judges. This would have the dual benefts of disengaging the judges from the disciplinary system and protecting the public. I would like to thank the members of the judiciary, court staff, the legal community and the members of the public for their assistance in aiding the commission to fulfll its important function. I must also extend my sincere gratitude to the commission staff and the commission members who worked tirelessly throughout the year to ensure public confdence in the judiciary and in the judicial system. It has been an honor to serve on the commission and I look forward to the commission’s continuing service to all who live in the State of California. Anthony P. Capozzi, Esq. Chairperson 2016 Annual Report COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2016 ANNUAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page COMMISSION MEMBERS ...................................................................................................................................i SPECIAL MASTERS .........................................................................................................................................vi I. OVERVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT PROCESS The Authority of the Commission on Judicial Performance .................................................................1 How Matters Are Brought Before the Commission ...............................................................................1 Judicial Misconduct ................................................................................................................................1 What the Commission Cannot Do .......................................................................................................1 Review and Investigation of Complaints ...............................................................................................1 Actions the Commission Can Take .......................................................................................................2 Confdential Dispositions .................................................................................................................2 Public Dispositions ...........................................................................................................................2 Review ....................................................................................................................................................2 Confdentiality .......................................................................................................................................2 II. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND COMMISSION PROCEDURES Legal Authority ......................................................................................................................................3 Recent Changes in the Law .............................................................................................................3 California Constitution, Government Code and Code of Civil Procedure .....................................3 Commission Rules and Policy Declarations .....................................................................................3 Rules of Court ...................................................................................................................................4 Code of Judicial Ethics .....................................................................................................................4 Commission Procedures .........................................................................................................................4 Commission Review of Complaints .................................................................................................4 Investigation at the Commission’s Direction and Disposition of Cases Without Formal Proceedings ......................................................................................................4 Deferral of Investigation ...................................................................................................................5 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................5 Mentoring .........................................................................................................................................5 Formal Proceedings ..........................................................................................................................6 Hearing ..................................................................................................................................................6 Commission Consideration Following Hearing ...............................................................................6 Disposition of Cases After Hearing ..................................................................................................6 Release of Votes ................................................................................................................................7 Supreme Court Review ..........................................................................................................................7 Statute of Limitations ............................................................................................................................7 Standard of Proof ...................................................................................................................................7 Confdentiality of Commission Proceedings ..........................................................................................7 2016 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Page III. ACTIVE AND FORMER JUDGES—2016 STATISTICS Complaints Received and Investigated .................................................................................................9 New Complaints ...............................................................................................................................9 Staff Inquiries and Preliminary Investigations .................................................................................9 Formal Proceedings ..........................................................................................................................9 Deferral of Investigation ....................................................................................................................... 10
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Truth in the Brock Turner Case and Recall of Judge Aaron Persky
    Truth in the Brock Turner Case and Recall of Judge Aaron Persky This white paper is a collection of views and personal opinions from alumni and other independent volunteers who have been following since mid-2016 the Brock Turner case and the recall of Judge Aaron Persky. Contributors include lawyers, medical professionals, former investigators and other interested persons. Chanel Miller’s name is being used here because Ms. Miller revealed her identity with her recently published book and her subsequent media and other appearances. Prior to that, materials of this nature referred to her as “Doe” which is why that name may also sometimes appear. What follows are solely the personal views and opinions of the volunteer contributors. [updated as of 1/17/20] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Overview, including seven big lies – page 2 Before, during and after the party – page 11 The arrest, investigation and trial – page 16 Conflicting testimony – page 31 Shortcomings at Stanford – page 35 The aftermath – page 38 NOTE: Throughout this white paper, the boldface and italics in quoted language has been added and was not in the original unless otherwise indicated. 1 OVERVIEW This no doubt will come as a surprise to many readers, but as discussed below, it has become clear from public records and other sources that Brock Turner was wrongfully prosecuted and convicted. To quote from a paper written by two lawyers who independently reviewed the case, the facts did not support a finding of guilty and Turner was actually innocent as a matter of law. He should never have been prosecuted for let alone convicted of the crimes he was charged with.
    [Show full text]
  • Declaration of Judge Persky
    1 MARK S. ROSEN (SBN 7243 1) Attorney at Law ^ 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 814 - Santa Ana, California 92701 Telephone (714) 285-9838 4 Facsimile (714) 285-9840 Email: [email protected] 5 JAMES McMANIS (SBN 40958) 6 McManis Faulkner a Professional Corporation 7 50 W. San Fernando St., 10th Floor San Jose, California 951 13 8 Telephone (408) 279-8700 9 Facsimile (408) 279-3244 Email: [email protected] 10 Attorneys for Petitioner, AARON PERSKY 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14 15 AARON PERSKY, ) Case No.: 16 ) Petitioner, ) DECLARATION OF AARON PERSKY IN 17 v. ) SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION ) FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 18 SHANNON BUSHEY, Santa Clara County ) AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY Registrar of Voters, ) PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE 19 ) SHOULD NOT ISSUE Respondent, 20 ) Date: August 1 1 , 20 1 7 21 Michele Dauber, Magdalena G. Carrasco, Grace ) Time: 8:15 a.m. H. Mah, Robert Livengood, Raul Peralez, Richard ) Dept.: TBD 22 Tran, Gary Kremen, Patrick J. Burt, Amado M. ) Judge: TBD Padilla, Shanta Franco-Clausen, Yan Zao, Jennifer) 23 Briscoe, Suzanne E. Doty, Allan Seid, M. Veira C.) IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED Whye, Kavita Tankha, Sophia Yen, Gabriel ) ELECTION LAW MATTER ENTITLED TO 24 Manjarrez, Steve Ko, Paulette Altmaier, ) CALENDAR PREFERENCE ) (CODE CIV. PROC., § 35) 25 Real Parties in Interest. 26 27 28 - 1 - DECLARATION OF AARON PERSKY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION 1 I, Aaron Persky, declare as follows: 2 1 . I am a judge serving on the Santa Clara County Superior Court and the Petitioner in 3 this action.
    [Show full text]
  • Weighing Democracy and Judicial Legitimacy in Judicial Selection
    California Western School of Law CWSL Scholarly Commons Faculty Scholarship 2018 Weighing Democracy and Judicial Legitimacy in Judicial Selection Kenneth S. Klein California Western School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/fs Part of the Courts Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Kenneth S. Klein, Weighing Democracy and Judicial Legitimacy in Judicial Selection, 23 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 269 (2018). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/fs/272 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WEIGHING DEMOCRACY ANDJUDICIAL LEGITIMACY IN JUDICIAL SELECTION KENNETH S. KLEIN* ABSTRACT For over two centuries Americans have debated whether judges should be elected or appointed. While the explicitly-framed tension has been about the relative importance of judicial independence and judicial accountability in a democracy, the underlying issue has been about which structure betterpromotes the legitimacy of the judiciary. An institution has legitimacy when it enjoys diffuse support even for controversial decisions. Judicial legitimacy is in inherent tension with a judiciary in a democracy, since democracy implicitly assumes political elements to selection of all leaders (including judges), while judicial legitimacy is undermined by politics. The contemporary work on the relationship between judicial selection methods and legitimacy does not support a clear preference for judicial election versus judicial appointment. This Article proposes that in order to promote judicial legitimacy in a democracy, considerationshould be given to a civil service-like, nonpartisan, objective merit screening of judicial aspirants-whetherthe aspirant ultimately is selected through election or appointment.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Ethics and Disciplinary Issues
    2018 Annual Conference Niagara Falls, New York Judicial Ethics and Disciplinary Issues September 25, 2018 Presented by: This program has been approved for credit in New York State Robert H. Tembeckjian, Esq. for all attorneys including those who are Hon. Michael Mohun Newly Admitted (less than 24 months) and adminstered by 2.0 MCLE Ethics the Onondaga County Bar Asssociation. JUDICIAL ETHICS AND DISCIPLINARY ISSUES ♦♦♦ NEW YORK STATE MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING ♦ SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 ♦ NIAGARA FALLS, NY ♦♦♦ HON. MICHAEL M. MOHUN, JUDGE COUNTY COURT, WYOMING COUNTY ROBERT H. TEMBECKJIAN, ADMINISTRATOR COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT ♦♦♦ PART I: CURRENT ISSUES IN JUDICIAL ETHICS & DISCIPLINE NY Times & LA Times Articles on the Judicial Independence 1 Recall of Judge Aaron Persky1 Removal Determination as to Rochester What Takes So Long? 2 City Court Judge Leticia Astacio2 Bill to Expand Suspension Authority, Proposed Legislation 3 Accelerate/Open Commission Proceedings3 PART II: HOW TO AVOID THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION 4 Overview of Commission 4 Slide Show 5 An Overview of the Commission5 Undue Delays 6 Gilpatric6 Civility/Demeanor 7 Romano7 Failing to Cooperate 8 O’Connor8 Audit & Control; Staff Supervision 9 Roller,9 Halstead10 Driving While Intoxicated 10 Landicino,11 Astacio12 Ex Parte Communications 11 Young,13 Ayres14 Asserting Prestige of Office 12 LaBombard,15 Ayres16 CONSULT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS17 AND THE CITY, TOWN AND VILLAGE COURTS RESOURCE CENTER18 1 Appended 2 http://cjc.ny.gov/Determinations/A/Astacio.htm
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Appointments
    Judicial Council of California Volume 5, Issue 11 Administrative Office of the Courts November/December 2003 Office of Governmental Affairs T HE CAPITOL CONNECTION IN THIS ISSUE EMERGENCY POWERS: JUST IN TIME ecently enacted legislation sponsored When wildfires in Southern California Emergency Powers 1 R by the Judicial Council was instrumen- caused the closure of government offices in tal in allowing the judicial branch to re- San Diego, the presiding judge in San spond to the devastating wildfires in South- Diego requested authorization to declare New PCLC Members 1 ern California in October. October 27 and 28 judicial holidays. The Chief Justice granted this request, giving Assembly Bill 1641 by Assembly Member civil litigants immediate relief from filing Rick Keene (R-Chico) amended Govern- Court Funding 2 deadlines and eliminating the need ment Code section 68115 to give for the court to hear motions to greater authority to the Chief Justice grant relief later. Such steps could Ripped from the when natural or man-made disasters 3 not have been taken prior to the Headlines threaten the orderly operation of the enactment of AB 1641. courts. The bill also included an ur- Judicial Appointments 6 gency provision so that it became In response to the closure of the San effective when it was signed by Diego courts, the Chief Justice Assembly Member New Governor Sworn In 8 the Governor on September 4. also issued an emergency or- One of the bill’s provisions Rick Keene der authorizing the court to (R-Chico) allows the Chief Justice to extend time periods related to LEGISLATIVE grant a request of a presiding various criminal proceedings, CALENDAR judge to declare a day on which a disaster including the time within which arrestees January 1 necessitates the closure of a court a judicial must be arraigned.
    [Show full text]
  • Can You Be a Feminist and a Criminal Defense Lawyer?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Georgetown Law Scholarly Commons Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2020 Can You Be a Feminist and a Criminal Defense Lawyer? Abbe Smith Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2273 American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 57, Issue 4, 1569. This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub CAN YOU BE A FEMINIST AND A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER? Abbe Smith* INTRODUCTION Young people in the current cultural generation seem to like the word ªliterally.º They use it often and with great feeling, though not necessarily accurately. Law students will exclaim, for example, that the length of reading assignments is ªliter- ally killing them.º Young public defenders will complain that judges and prosecu- tors are ªliterally driving them crazy.º My son sometimes claims that he is ªliterally starving to death.º I can't help replying to each, ªWell, maybe not literally.º But the answer to the question I pose in this Essay is literally self-evident, for I am both a feminist and a criminal defense lawyer. I have been both of these things for more than thirty years. So yes, of course, one can be a feminist and a criminal defense lawyer: here I am. Moreover, I have answered this question many times in nearly everything I have written since becoming a law professor.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Motion by Judge Persky
    1 MARKS. ROSEN (SBN 72431) Attorney at Law 2 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 814 Santa Ana, California 92701 3 Telephone (714) 285-9838 4 Facsimile (714) 285-9840 Email: [email protected] 5 JAMES McMANIS (SBN 40958) 6 McManis Faulkner a Professional Corporation 7 50 W. San Fernando St., 10th Floor 8 San Jose, California 95113 Telephone ( 408) 279-8700 9 Facsimile ( 408) 279-3244 Email: [email protected] 10 Attorneys for Petitioner, AARON PERSKY 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14 15 AARON PERSKY, ) Case No.: 16 ) Petitioner, ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF 17 v. ) MANDATE ) 18 SHANNON BUSHEY, Santa Clara County ) Registrar of Voters, ) 19 ) Respondent, ) 20 ---------------:) IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED 21 Michele Dauber, Magdalena G. Carrasco, Grace ) ELECTION LAW MATTER ENTITLED TO H. Mah, Robert Livengood, Raul Peralez, Richard ) CALENDAR PREFERENCE 22 Tran, Gary Kremen, Patrick J. Burt, Amado M. ) (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 35) Padilla, Shanta Franco-Clausen, Yan Zao, Jennifer) 23 Briscoe, Suzanne E. Doty, Allan Seid, M. Veira C.) 24 Whye, Kavita Tankha, Sophia Yen, Gabriel ) Manjarrez, Steve Ko, Paulette Altmaier, ) 25 ) Real Parties in Interest 26 27 Petitioner Aaron Persky petitions this Court for an alternative writ of mandate and order to 28 show cause, and a peremptory writ of mandate, and by this verified petition alleges: -1- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 1. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court issue an alternative writ of mandate and 2 order to show cause, and then a peremptory writ of mandate, commanding the following: 3 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Carceral Feminism, Brock Turner, and the Dilemmas of Seeking Accountability for Sexual Violence in Our Prison Nation
    Interrogating Injustice: Carceral Feminism, Brock Turner, and the Dilemmas of Seeking Accountability for Sexual Violence in Our Prison Nation A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Gender, Sexuality, & Women’s Studies from William & Mary by Willa Quinn Moffatt Accepted for _____Honors______________________________ (Honors) __Claire McKinney_______________________________ Claire McKinney, Director __Victoria A. Castillo_____________________________ Victoria Castillo ___Jackson Sasser________________________________ Jackson Sasser Williamsburg, VA May 10, 2021 Interrogating Injustice: Carceral Feminism, Brock Turner, and the Dilemmas of Seeking Accountability for Sexual Violence in Our Prison Nation Willa Quinn Moffatt Gender, Sexuality, & Women’s Studies Undergraduate Honors Thesis Professor Claire McKinney May 14, 2021 Moffatt 3 Table of Contents I. Epigraph 4 II. Preface 5 III. Background 11 IV. Case Study: The People vs. Brock Turner 21 a. Case Summary b. Sentencing Narrative V. Innocence of Whiteness & the Production of Dangerous Individuals 33 a. Super-Predators and Racialized Youth b. “Brock Turner is Not a Rapist” c. “Goodbye to the Olympics” VI. The Catch-22 for Victims 41 a. The Bind b. The Path to Trial c. Secondary Victimization d. Verdict versus Sentence e. The Recall: Carceral Feminism versus Carceral Reform f. Whose Accountability? VII. Interests of Justice 50 a. Community Justice i. Stanford and the Role of a University ii. Obligations iii. Stanford’s Response b. Victim’s Justice c. Perpetrator’s Justice VIII. Afterword 66 IX. Acknowledgements 70 X. References 71 Moffatt 4 “When you say, ‘What would we do without prisons?’ what you are really saying is: ‘What would we do without civil death, exploitation, and state-sanctioned violence?’ That is an old question and the answer remains the same: Whatever it takes to build a society that does not continuously rearrange the trappings of annihilation and bondage while calling itself ‘free.’” -Kelly Hayes and Mariame Kaba, 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Judicial Selection in California
    ST ANFORD Judicial Selection in California Reece Trevor Alexa Graumlich, Elena Mercado, Juan Pablo Perez- Sangimino, Christen Phillips Lucy Ricca, Jason Solomon 2017 559 Nathan Abbot Way Stanford, CA 94305 law.stanford.edu/stanford-center-on-the-legal-profession Executive Summary Systems for selecting state judges vary dramatically across the United States, comprising a complex range of elective and appointive mechanisms. Each of these systems has its advantages and disadvantages for important judicial values. For instance, popularly-elected judges may be more accountable to their state’s electorate, but that same accountability might cause them to impose harsh sentences on criminal defendants or otherwise disfavor unpopular litigants—especially as election season approaches. 1 By examining how different state systems serve or disserve these values, it may be possible to distill broader recommendations to create a fairer and better judiciary. This report, part of a broader investigation into judicial selection by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, surveys California’s method for selecting judges. California uses a unique hybrid system, combining elements of both the elective and appointive selection models. While California citizens do have the power to elect trial court judges in specific circumstances, the governor appoints the vast majority of judges at the superior (trial), intermediate appellate, and Supreme Court levels. Focusing on California therefore makes sense: if this hybrid works well for California, it might offer the best of both worlds to other states. The report draws on public documents, state archives, and interviews with stakeholders throughout the California judicial community to assess the selection system’s performance in five key areas: quality, independence, accountability and legitimacy, public confidence, and diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanford University Sexual Assault Case Prompts Backlash
    June 7, 2016 Stanford University sexual assault case prompts backlash Anger over sentence student received leads to recall effort for judge, demonstration plan at graduation By MELISSA KORN and MIRIAM JORDAN Former Stanford University student Brock Turner was sentenced to six months in county jail and three years of probation last week for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on campus. But for many Stanford students and faculty, the case is far from closed. A coalition led by a Stanford faculty member launched an effort this week to recall the California judge in the case. A student-led protest is planned during graduation ceremonies Saturday. Meanwhile, Mr. Turner’s defense team filed a notice after the sentencing Thursday “preserving Mr. Turner’s right to appeal,” according to Dennis P. Riordan, a San Francisco appeals lawyer who was at the court. The team hasn’t yet decided whether to pursue the appeal, or who would represent Mr. Turner if the appeal proceeds, he said. If an appeal does go forward, it could lead to a new trial — and, potentially, a new sentence. Mr. Turner, a Stanford freshman and competitive swimmer at the time of the attack, was found guilty in March of three felony counts of sexual assault. The victim, who hasn’t been identified and wasn’t a Stanford student, was found behind a dumpster after visiting the campus for a fraternity party in January 2015. The case ignited an uproar after the sentencing and after the victim, known as Emily Doe, read a 12-page statement in court Thursday about the impact of her rape.
    [Show full text]
  • Why California Should End “Unregulated” Judicial Recall Wiemond Wu
    The University of the Pacific Law Review Volume 49 Article 10 Issue 3 1/6/2018 1-1-2018 Crocodiles in the Judge’s Bathtub? Why California Should End “Unregulated” Judicial Recall Wiemond Wu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Wiemond Wu, Crocodiles in the Judge’s Bathtub? Why California Should End “Unregulated” Judicial Recall, 49 U. Pac. L. Rev. 669 (2017). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol49/iss3/10 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The nivU ersity of the Pacific Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Crocodiles in the Judge’s Bathtub? Why California Should End “Unregulated” Judicial Recall Wiemond Wu* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 700 II. JUDGES & THE RULE OF LAW ...................................................................... 702 III. THE MEANING OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ............................................... 704 IV. SELECTING JUDGES AS A METHOD OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ........... 705 A. Judicial Selection in Federal Court ...................................................... 706 B. Judicial Selection in State Court ........................................................... 707 1. The First Wave: Partisan
    [Show full text]
  • An Appointed Judge on Monday Lifted a Temporary Restraining Order
    Judge Allows Persky Recall Effort to Move Forward SAN JOSE -- An appointed judge on Monday lifted a temporary restraining order that had blocked supporters of a recall campaign to oust Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky from collecting signatures, giving them a shot at recalling him in elections next June. Kay Tsenin, a retired San Francisco Superior Court judge, said at the end of an hour-long hearing that the recall campaign could begin collecting signatures and would regain any of the 160 days they lost to gather them as a result of the TRO that was issued earlier this month. The ruling prompted a dozen campaign supporters in the courtroom, including Stanford Law School professor Michele Dauber, to erupt into applause. As she rose to leave the court, Tsenin said: “It’s not about that, ladies and gentlemen. It’s about the law.” Had Tsenin not lifted the restraining order, the recall campaign would have run the risk of missing the tight deadlines spelled out in the Elections Code to put the recall on the June 2018 ballot during county elections. If they had been blocked past Sept. 1, the campaign would have had to set its sights on elections the following November. The recall campaign’s lawyer, Fredric Woocher of Strumwasser & Woocher in Los Angeles, argued the TRO was an unjustified “prior restraint” of their First Amendment rights. Recall supporters have pursued Persky's removal from the bench since June 2016, when he found himself at the center of a nationwide uproar for sentencing Stanford University student Brock Turner to just six months in jail for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman.
    [Show full text]