Hudson Sangree of the Sacramento Bee then had a piece yesterday that says much of the same thing in a newspaper article entitled “Yolo County has closed trials before the public.”
Reading through that article one of the more interesting revelations comes from the Mark Anderson case–the Woodland dentist who was accused of fondling his female patients last October.
As Mr. Sangree describes it:
“Reporters waiting for the court’s doors to open at 8:30 a.m. were surprised when defense attorney Michael Rothschild emerged, smiling, and said the proceeding was over.”
In fact, there was a series of hearings that somehow the family of the accused attended but the relatives of the victims were never informed of, and the arraignment hearing was neither placed on the public calendar nor was there any other public notice.
The part that gets me is the next tidbit. These hearings were attended by Commission Janene Beronio (same person who attended last week’s arraignment). When the Sacramento Bee tried to talk to Beronio, questions were referred to court Executive Officer Jim Lawyer.
When the Bee tried to talk to Jim Perry–he claimed that he could not comment about the Anderson hearings since he knew nothing about them.
So wait a second, who is in charge here? The Commissioner is refusing to talk and the guy in charge does not know anything about the hearings? That right there is scary. Who is running this show?
Who exactly is Jim Perry then? He is not a lawyer, but he does manage the court’s operations.
It gets more interesting here.
Talking about the CHP trial, Jim Perry is quoted as saying:
“There were seats set aside for the media in the Stevens case. Everyone else stood in line, including law enforcement.”
Not so says Hudson Sangree in his article.
“Reporters who covered the trial for weeks and stood in line say otherwise.”
Mr. Sangree continues quoting Perry:
Perry also maintained that Wednesday’s arraignment was public – as required by law – despite deputies’ decision to prevent the defendant’s family, the general public and media from attending by locking the courthouse doors.
“There was a great mistake, but the hearing stands as it was,” Perry said. “Both sides, the public defender and the DA were in the courtroom. It was on the record.”
Notice what Perry is now doing. On the one hand he is suggesting that the arraignment was public as required by law. On the other hand, he suggests this is a mistake, but by the same token, no laws were violated since the lawyers were in the room and a transcript is available.
Fortunately, Perry is not allowed to get away with this, at least not in the newspaper article. James Chadwick who is President of the California First Amendment Coalition and is a lawyer who represents the media was interviewed. He did not pull any punches either.
Mr. Chadwick calls Jim Perry’s assertion:
“the worst kind of Orwellian doublespeak… It wasn’t public if only the public that the deputy sheriffs wanted to allow in were allowed in. That’s not what public means.”
Yes, thank you Mr. Chadwick for calling it as you see it.
The article goes on to talk about how important it is that the arraignment is held in public. Peter Scheer also from California’s First Amendment Coalition talked about the fact that in countries that do not have rules of law, they keep the public out of arraignments and such proceedings because “the initiation of criminal charges against people is arbitrary.”
A mistake has been made, it does not appear to be the first time that a mistake has been made on this, heads will roll though? There will be consequences, right?
Apparently it is the Sheriff’s responsibility to discipline his deputies for what happens in Yolo Court buildings.
And Sheriff Ed Prieto said that he would neither punish nor reassign those responsible for locking the public out. Nor will he identify them.
On the other hand, who does Jim Perry answer to? Is he the problem here or the scapegoat?
I get the fact that Ed Prieto just lost one of his deputies. Ed Prieto is understandably going through a very tough time. However, he is a professional, an elected public official, and he has a job to do. The public deserves a better accounting than it has gotten. Fine a mistake was made, fix it.
I have to ask again, who does Jim Perry answer to? Because it seems to me that he is dodging serious questions at least in the public realm.
All of this raises very serious issues for the Yolo County Courts. I think the accused in this case has the right to a change in venue where they can get perhaps a fairer trial. He may be guilty of everything, but he deserves at least the semblance of a transparent system.
Someone needs to seriously examine the Yolo County Court system. We have long questioned the prosecution aspect of it, but it appears the problems go beyond even that.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Yolo County government has one fundamental problem which the public sometimes gets a whiff of thru incidents like the most recent courtroom closure. I believe that it comes from a certain type of small-town arrogance that wouldn’t be out of place in rurual Georgia or Oklahoma, which leads to county agencies run like “top-down” mini-fiefdoms, or corporations with “at will” employees. In actuality, for most of our county agencies the welfare of, and service to the public is secondary to the facade of functionality that is necessary for serious inquiries into bad or unethical acts to consistently go uninvestigated. This has been going on in Yolo County “forever” in the face of lots of “small” transient problems which seem to appear and then just disappear, one after another. The circumstances which allow this to continue are: a combination of smug and shrewd agency heads who actively collaborate to suppress serious inquiries into wrongdoing, no investigative journalists with any interest in Yolo County, no local media with any interest in rocking the boat, and justifiable fear of retaliation by employees with pensions to lose. On top of that, there are no actually functioning watchdog state agencies with any interest, or a Grand Jury with any ability or desire to expose internal rot. It’s all just so comfortable and easily controllable for your local elected officials that working together to foster and maintain a system closed to any real scrutiny is almost an organic response to the opportunity created by the circumstances. If you live in a small county this is probably inevitable to a greater or lesser degree. If you don’t work in Woodland it’s easy to ignore because we just don’t want to know about it. If you do work in Woodland, and you’re not an elected official, there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Yolo County government has one fundamental problem which the public sometimes gets a whiff of thru incidents like the most recent courtroom closure. I believe that it comes from a certain type of small-town arrogance that wouldn’t be out of place in rurual Georgia or Oklahoma, which leads to county agencies run like “top-down” mini-fiefdoms, or corporations with “at will” employees. In actuality, for most of our county agencies the welfare of, and service to the public is secondary to the facade of functionality that is necessary for serious inquiries into bad or unethical acts to consistently go uninvestigated. This has been going on in Yolo County “forever” in the face of lots of “small” transient problems which seem to appear and then just disappear, one after another. The circumstances which allow this to continue are: a combination of smug and shrewd agency heads who actively collaborate to suppress serious inquiries into wrongdoing, no investigative journalists with any interest in Yolo County, no local media with any interest in rocking the boat, and justifiable fear of retaliation by employees with pensions to lose. On top of that, there are no actually functioning watchdog state agencies with any interest, or a Grand Jury with any ability or desire to expose internal rot. It’s all just so comfortable and easily controllable for your local elected officials that working together to foster and maintain a system closed to any real scrutiny is almost an organic response to the opportunity created by the circumstances. If you live in a small county this is probably inevitable to a greater or lesser degree. If you don’t work in Woodland it’s easy to ignore because we just don’t want to know about it. If you do work in Woodland, and you’re not an elected official, there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Yolo County government has one fundamental problem which the public sometimes gets a whiff of thru incidents like the most recent courtroom closure. I believe that it comes from a certain type of small-town arrogance that wouldn’t be out of place in rurual Georgia or Oklahoma, which leads to county agencies run like “top-down” mini-fiefdoms, or corporations with “at will” employees. In actuality, for most of our county agencies the welfare of, and service to the public is secondary to the facade of functionality that is necessary for serious inquiries into bad or unethical acts to consistently go uninvestigated. This has been going on in Yolo County “forever” in the face of lots of “small” transient problems which seem to appear and then just disappear, one after another. The circumstances which allow this to continue are: a combination of smug and shrewd agency heads who actively collaborate to suppress serious inquiries into wrongdoing, no investigative journalists with any interest in Yolo County, no local media with any interest in rocking the boat, and justifiable fear of retaliation by employees with pensions to lose. On top of that, there are no actually functioning watchdog state agencies with any interest, or a Grand Jury with any ability or desire to expose internal rot. It’s all just so comfortable and easily controllable for your local elected officials that working together to foster and maintain a system closed to any real scrutiny is almost an organic response to the opportunity created by the circumstances. If you live in a small county this is probably inevitable to a greater or lesser degree. If you don’t work in Woodland it’s easy to ignore because we just don’t want to know about it. If you do work in Woodland, and you’re not an elected official, there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Yolo County government has one fundamental problem which the public sometimes gets a whiff of thru incidents like the most recent courtroom closure. I believe that it comes from a certain type of small-town arrogance that wouldn’t be out of place in rurual Georgia or Oklahoma, which leads to county agencies run like “top-down” mini-fiefdoms, or corporations with “at will” employees. In actuality, for most of our county agencies the welfare of, and service to the public is secondary to the facade of functionality that is necessary for serious inquiries into bad or unethical acts to consistently go uninvestigated. This has been going on in Yolo County “forever” in the face of lots of “small” transient problems which seem to appear and then just disappear, one after another. The circumstances which allow this to continue are: a combination of smug and shrewd agency heads who actively collaborate to suppress serious inquiries into wrongdoing, no investigative journalists with any interest in Yolo County, no local media with any interest in rocking the boat, and justifiable fear of retaliation by employees with pensions to lose. On top of that, there are no actually functioning watchdog state agencies with any interest, or a Grand Jury with any ability or desire to expose internal rot. It’s all just so comfortable and easily controllable for your local elected officials that working together to foster and maintain a system closed to any real scrutiny is almost an organic response to the opportunity created by the circumstances. If you live in a small county this is probably inevitable to a greater or lesser degree. If you don’t work in Woodland it’s easy to ignore because we just don’t want to know about it. If you do work in Woodland, and you’re not an elected official, there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Some additional information: a collection of Yolo County Judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts in Sacramento have jurisdiction over Jim Perry.
Some additional information: a collection of Yolo County Judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts in Sacramento have jurisdiction over Jim Perry.
Some additional information: a collection of Yolo County Judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts in Sacramento have jurisdiction over Jim Perry.
Some additional information: a collection of Yolo County Judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts in Sacramento have jurisdiction over Jim Perry.
I think we’re losing focus here. The defendant in this case, first drove in excess of 100 mph with a child in the car to flee a police officer. He then shot the police officer using an assault rifle and killed him (allegedly). Those actions should be causing outrage, not court procedure.
At hearing, the defendant had legal representation. Some people weren’t allowed to get in the courtroom because of a stupid mistake. So what? This was just a routine hearing. Judge Rosenberg made clear it should not have happened. Move on. There is no real evidence that this defendant is unable to receive a fair trial. The court has not made any egregious rulings against him.
Of course, as the media works itself into hysteria, it will become increasingly difficult to find an impartial jury, which i the key to the defendant getting a fair trial. I’ve never heard of an appeal being sustained because third party and media members didn’t have preferential access to a courtroom. In fact, why should they get preferential access? If I decide to go to a trial where I have an interest or something at stake, and cannot get in because there are a bunch of reporters there, I’d be pissed.
I think we’re losing focus here. The defendant in this case, first drove in excess of 100 mph with a child in the car to flee a police officer. He then shot the police officer using an assault rifle and killed him (allegedly). Those actions should be causing outrage, not court procedure.
At hearing, the defendant had legal representation. Some people weren’t allowed to get in the courtroom because of a stupid mistake. So what? This was just a routine hearing. Judge Rosenberg made clear it should not have happened. Move on. There is no real evidence that this defendant is unable to receive a fair trial. The court has not made any egregious rulings against him.
Of course, as the media works itself into hysteria, it will become increasingly difficult to find an impartial jury, which i the key to the defendant getting a fair trial. I’ve never heard of an appeal being sustained because third party and media members didn’t have preferential access to a courtroom. In fact, why should they get preferential access? If I decide to go to a trial where I have an interest or something at stake, and cannot get in because there are a bunch of reporters there, I’d be pissed.
I think we’re losing focus here. The defendant in this case, first drove in excess of 100 mph with a child in the car to flee a police officer. He then shot the police officer using an assault rifle and killed him (allegedly). Those actions should be causing outrage, not court procedure.
At hearing, the defendant had legal representation. Some people weren’t allowed to get in the courtroom because of a stupid mistake. So what? This was just a routine hearing. Judge Rosenberg made clear it should not have happened. Move on. There is no real evidence that this defendant is unable to receive a fair trial. The court has not made any egregious rulings against him.
Of course, as the media works itself into hysteria, it will become increasingly difficult to find an impartial jury, which i the key to the defendant getting a fair trial. I’ve never heard of an appeal being sustained because third party and media members didn’t have preferential access to a courtroom. In fact, why should they get preferential access? If I decide to go to a trial where I have an interest or something at stake, and cannot get in because there are a bunch of reporters there, I’d be pissed.
I think we’re losing focus here. The defendant in this case, first drove in excess of 100 mph with a child in the car to flee a police officer. He then shot the police officer using an assault rifle and killed him (allegedly). Those actions should be causing outrage, not court procedure.
At hearing, the defendant had legal representation. Some people weren’t allowed to get in the courtroom because of a stupid mistake. So what? This was just a routine hearing. Judge Rosenberg made clear it should not have happened. Move on. There is no real evidence that this defendant is unable to receive a fair trial. The court has not made any egregious rulings against him.
Of course, as the media works itself into hysteria, it will become increasingly difficult to find an impartial jury, which i the key to the defendant getting a fair trial. I’ve never heard of an appeal being sustained because third party and media members didn’t have preferential access to a courtroom. In fact, why should they get preferential access? If I decide to go to a trial where I have an interest or something at stake, and cannot get in because there are a bunch of reporters there, I’d be pissed.
With a few notable exceptions, the Yolo bench has a somewhat neanderthal judicial image.A few years ago, remember the Yolo judge who waved a zuchinni from the bench as a prop,in a rape/sexual abuse case as I recall? Will current Presiding Judge Rosenberg, the quintessential political player take charge and risk alienating powerful Yolo political forces? Unlikely.
With a few notable exceptions, the Yolo bench has a somewhat neanderthal judicial image.A few years ago, remember the Yolo judge who waved a zuchinni from the bench as a prop,in a rape/sexual abuse case as I recall? Will current Presiding Judge Rosenberg, the quintessential political player take charge and risk alienating powerful Yolo political forces? Unlikely.
With a few notable exceptions, the Yolo bench has a somewhat neanderthal judicial image.A few years ago, remember the Yolo judge who waved a zuchinni from the bench as a prop,in a rape/sexual abuse case as I recall? Will current Presiding Judge Rosenberg, the quintessential political player take charge and risk alienating powerful Yolo political forces? Unlikely.
With a few notable exceptions, the Yolo bench has a somewhat neanderthal judicial image.A few years ago, remember the Yolo judge who waved a zuchinni from the bench as a prop,in a rape/sexual abuse case as I recall? Will current Presiding Judge Rosenberg, the quintessential political player take charge and risk alienating powerful Yolo political forces? Unlikely.
no, we aren’t losing focus
rather, you are instead trying to divert attention away from the embarassing manner in which the court and the deputies frequently conduct themselves in relation to court hearings
the alleged perpetrator of the crime will be prosecuted, and, if found guilty, sentenced appropriately
but we are entitled to see that done in accordance with the constitutional and statutory procedures that govern the criminal process
a reasonable, easily satisified requirement that both the court and the deputies have decided to willfully violate on numerous occasions as reported in the Bee yesterday
the Anderson case is telling, because it shows how the willingness of the court and the deputies to display favoritism in regard to access to the court goes both ways, the court and the deputies permitted Anderson to appear at hearings with friends and family, while the victims were excluded
as for Perry, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone give such a straight out F-you to the media, because he just straight out lied, knew that he was lying, and knew that he was going to get trashed in the paper, and didn’t care, because it was in the service of the court and the sheriff’s department
as anonymous said, something out of rural Georgia and Oklahoma
as for Prieto, his unwillingness to take any action raises questions as to the extent the deputies in the courthouse have been acting at his direction all along
–Richard Estes
no, we aren’t losing focus
rather, you are instead trying to divert attention away from the embarassing manner in which the court and the deputies frequently conduct themselves in relation to court hearings
the alleged perpetrator of the crime will be prosecuted, and, if found guilty, sentenced appropriately
but we are entitled to see that done in accordance with the constitutional and statutory procedures that govern the criminal process
a reasonable, easily satisified requirement that both the court and the deputies have decided to willfully violate on numerous occasions as reported in the Bee yesterday
the Anderson case is telling, because it shows how the willingness of the court and the deputies to display favoritism in regard to access to the court goes both ways, the court and the deputies permitted Anderson to appear at hearings with friends and family, while the victims were excluded
as for Perry, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone give such a straight out F-you to the media, because he just straight out lied, knew that he was lying, and knew that he was going to get trashed in the paper, and didn’t care, because it was in the service of the court and the sheriff’s department
as anonymous said, something out of rural Georgia and Oklahoma
as for Prieto, his unwillingness to take any action raises questions as to the extent the deputies in the courthouse have been acting at his direction all along
–Richard Estes
no, we aren’t losing focus
rather, you are instead trying to divert attention away from the embarassing manner in which the court and the deputies frequently conduct themselves in relation to court hearings
the alleged perpetrator of the crime will be prosecuted, and, if found guilty, sentenced appropriately
but we are entitled to see that done in accordance with the constitutional and statutory procedures that govern the criminal process
a reasonable, easily satisified requirement that both the court and the deputies have decided to willfully violate on numerous occasions as reported in the Bee yesterday
the Anderson case is telling, because it shows how the willingness of the court and the deputies to display favoritism in regard to access to the court goes both ways, the court and the deputies permitted Anderson to appear at hearings with friends and family, while the victims were excluded
as for Perry, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone give such a straight out F-you to the media, because he just straight out lied, knew that he was lying, and knew that he was going to get trashed in the paper, and didn’t care, because it was in the service of the court and the sheriff’s department
as anonymous said, something out of rural Georgia and Oklahoma
as for Prieto, his unwillingness to take any action raises questions as to the extent the deputies in the courthouse have been acting at his direction all along
–Richard Estes
no, we aren’t losing focus
rather, you are instead trying to divert attention away from the embarassing manner in which the court and the deputies frequently conduct themselves in relation to court hearings
the alleged perpetrator of the crime will be prosecuted, and, if found guilty, sentenced appropriately
but we are entitled to see that done in accordance with the constitutional and statutory procedures that govern the criminal process
a reasonable, easily satisified requirement that both the court and the deputies have decided to willfully violate on numerous occasions as reported in the Bee yesterday
the Anderson case is telling, because it shows how the willingness of the court and the deputies to display favoritism in regard to access to the court goes both ways, the court and the deputies permitted Anderson to appear at hearings with friends and family, while the victims were excluded
as for Perry, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone give such a straight out F-you to the media, because he just straight out lied, knew that he was lying, and knew that he was going to get trashed in the paper, and didn’t care, because it was in the service of the court and the sheriff’s department
as anonymous said, something out of rural Georgia and Oklahoma
as for Prieto, his unwillingness to take any action raises questions as to the extent the deputies in the courthouse have been acting at his direction all along
–Richard Estes
I was stopped a couple month’s back, when entering a court room hearing in Yolo County where allegations of taser and baton beatings of 2 Mexican brothers by WSPD.
Mind you the entire court room was empty, except for a Bee reporter I recognized and an acquaintance I knew who was close the brothers in the case, but even so, the bailiff asked who I was & I quietly told him I was a member of the public. However, he heard otherwise and thought I said I was a law student, so I agreed and he let me right in.
I thought this was strange procedure, but just assumed that a court order had been issued by the judge so I didn’t question it, but now that all of this has come to light, I’m guessing it was just Yolo County trying to keep the public from these types of high profile court proceedings. The judge in this instance was Judge Warriner, though.
–mrsedeet
I was stopped a couple month’s back, when entering a court room hearing in Yolo County where allegations of taser and baton beatings of 2 Mexican brothers by WSPD.
Mind you the entire court room was empty, except for a Bee reporter I recognized and an acquaintance I knew who was close the brothers in the case, but even so, the bailiff asked who I was & I quietly told him I was a member of the public. However, he heard otherwise and thought I said I was a law student, so I agreed and he let me right in.
I thought this was strange procedure, but just assumed that a court order had been issued by the judge so I didn’t question it, but now that all of this has come to light, I’m guessing it was just Yolo County trying to keep the public from these types of high profile court proceedings. The judge in this instance was Judge Warriner, though.
–mrsedeet
I was stopped a couple month’s back, when entering a court room hearing in Yolo County where allegations of taser and baton beatings of 2 Mexican brothers by WSPD.
Mind you the entire court room was empty, except for a Bee reporter I recognized and an acquaintance I knew who was close the brothers in the case, but even so, the bailiff asked who I was & I quietly told him I was a member of the public. However, he heard otherwise and thought I said I was a law student, so I agreed and he let me right in.
I thought this was strange procedure, but just assumed that a court order had been issued by the judge so I didn’t question it, but now that all of this has come to light, I’m guessing it was just Yolo County trying to keep the public from these types of high profile court proceedings. The judge in this instance was Judge Warriner, though.
–mrsedeet
I was stopped a couple month’s back, when entering a court room hearing in Yolo County where allegations of taser and baton beatings of 2 Mexican brothers by WSPD.
Mind you the entire court room was empty, except for a Bee reporter I recognized and an acquaintance I knew who was close the brothers in the case, but even so, the bailiff asked who I was & I quietly told him I was a member of the public. However, he heard otherwise and thought I said I was a law student, so I agreed and he let me right in.
I thought this was strange procedure, but just assumed that a court order had been issued by the judge so I didn’t question it, but now that all of this has come to light, I’m guessing it was just Yolo County trying to keep the public from these types of high profile court proceedings. The judge in this instance was Judge Warriner, though.
–mrsedeet
Matt Rexroad has an interesting perspective on this at his blog.
Matt Rexroad has an interesting perspective on this at his blog.
Matt Rexroad has an interesting perspective on this at his blog.
Matt Rexroad has an interesting perspective on this at his blog.
Judge Warriner’s bailiff is a bit of a Nazi. In the interest of security, he takes down the names of everyone who enters the hearing/courtroom. Plus, Warriner’s courtroom is small, so it’s often not able to fit everyone inside it and some must stay outside in the staging area. He uses the names to call appropriate parties from the staging area if necessary. No conspiracy here, just a strict personality.
Judge Warriner’s bailiff is a bit of a Nazi. In the interest of security, he takes down the names of everyone who enters the hearing/courtroom. Plus, Warriner’s courtroom is small, so it’s often not able to fit everyone inside it and some must stay outside in the staging area. He uses the names to call appropriate parties from the staging area if necessary. No conspiracy here, just a strict personality.
Judge Warriner’s bailiff is a bit of a Nazi. In the interest of security, he takes down the names of everyone who enters the hearing/courtroom. Plus, Warriner’s courtroom is small, so it’s often not able to fit everyone inside it and some must stay outside in the staging area. He uses the names to call appropriate parties from the staging area if necessary. No conspiracy here, just a strict personality.
Judge Warriner’s bailiff is a bit of a Nazi. In the interest of security, he takes down the names of everyone who enters the hearing/courtroom. Plus, Warriner’s courtroom is small, so it’s often not able to fit everyone inside it and some must stay outside in the staging area. He uses the names to call appropriate parties from the staging area if necessary. No conspiracy here, just a strict personality.
People should know that they do not have to give their names to the Baliff. Even if they are Nazi-like.
Also, we are not losing focus. I, and I’m sure other too, are outraged that man who shot a deputy was on the run and driving with a baby in the back seat. IT IS AN OUTRAGE!
However, let’s now lose sight of the rights of the public to have access to the proceedings. The fact that we do not have acces and that it is trying to be covered up by the crooked courts of YOLO COUNTY IS AN OUTRAGE TOO!
People should know that they do not have to give their names to the Baliff. Even if they are Nazi-like.
Also, we are not losing focus. I, and I’m sure other too, are outraged that man who shot a deputy was on the run and driving with a baby in the back seat. IT IS AN OUTRAGE!
However, let’s now lose sight of the rights of the public to have access to the proceedings. The fact that we do not have acces and that it is trying to be covered up by the crooked courts of YOLO COUNTY IS AN OUTRAGE TOO!
People should know that they do not have to give their names to the Baliff. Even if they are Nazi-like.
Also, we are not losing focus. I, and I’m sure other too, are outraged that man who shot a deputy was on the run and driving with a baby in the back seat. IT IS AN OUTRAGE!
However, let’s now lose sight of the rights of the public to have access to the proceedings. The fact that we do not have acces and that it is trying to be covered up by the crooked courts of YOLO COUNTY IS AN OUTRAGE TOO!
People should know that they do not have to give their names to the Baliff. Even if they are Nazi-like.
Also, we are not losing focus. I, and I’m sure other too, are outraged that man who shot a deputy was on the run and driving with a baby in the back seat. IT IS AN OUTRAGE!
However, let’s now lose sight of the rights of the public to have access to the proceedings. The fact that we do not have acces and that it is trying to be covered up by the crooked courts of YOLO COUNTY IS AN OUTRAGE TOO!
wdf: I think Rexroad has it right in relation to Rosenberg, with Prieto, I don’t know enough to say
–Richard Estes
wdf: I think Rexroad has it right in relation to Rosenberg, with Prieto, I don’t know enough to say
–Richard Estes
wdf: I think Rexroad has it right in relation to Rosenberg, with Prieto, I don’t know enough to say
–Richard Estes
wdf: I think Rexroad has it right in relation to Rosenberg, with Prieto, I don’t know enough to say
–Richard Estes
Just so we all remember, the Zuchinni Judge was Jim Stevens, who cost the County $600,000 in a harassment settlement and now spends his retired days writing right-wing letters to the editor in the Enterprise. A real winner.
Just so we all remember, the Zuchinni Judge was Jim Stevens, who cost the County $600,000 in a harassment settlement and now spends his retired days writing right-wing letters to the editor in the Enterprise. A real winner.
Just so we all remember, the Zuchinni Judge was Jim Stevens, who cost the County $600,000 in a harassment settlement and now spends his retired days writing right-wing letters to the editor in the Enterprise. A real winner.
Just so we all remember, the Zuchinni Judge was Jim Stevens, who cost the County $600,000 in a harassment settlement and now spends his retired days writing right-wing letters to the editor in the Enterprise. A real winner.
To Richard Estes: it’s hard to believe that you’re a bigger blowhard than DPD. Sheesh, man!
To Richard Estes: it’s hard to believe that you’re a bigger blowhard than DPD. Sheesh, man!
To Richard Estes: it’s hard to believe that you’re a bigger blowhard than DPD. Sheesh, man!
To Richard Estes: it’s hard to believe that you’re a bigger blowhard than DPD. Sheesh, man!
We are not losing focus. We need to put a stop to deputy interference in people to attending hearings and trials. This is going on on a more than infrequent basis at the courthouse. I think that they are sorely lacking in education about what is and what is not OK and some are quite jerks about it if you question them.
One typical instance is a juvenile case where the juvenile offender specifically requested that an adult friend who had accompanied her and her mother to court be allowed to come into the hearing with her. The deputy at the door denied the request and the friend/mentor had to remain outside for the hearing. The deputy clearly did not understand that the juvenile can request anyone they want to attend their own hearing for support.
I’ve heard other instances where the deputy was overheard hollering the name of juvenile offenders down the hallway when it was their turn to be seen, violating the juvenile’s right to confidentiality. My thought at the time was “what a complete doofus.”
What really needs to happen is that the deputies need to provide security only and let other people who are educated in civil rights and law to operate the courts.
I think that the Yolo County Courthouse is truely inadequate with multiple side entrances and court rooms scattered around. Some deputies are really on their own at the remote locations and it invites disparity in enforcement of rules, depending on their own minimal understanding of the law. The new courthouse can’t be built fast enough.
My reaction to the latest fiasco is again, “What a complete doofus!” to think that he could lock the public out and be able to control who can and cannot attend. A real idiot who has damaged the reputation of the court. He should be fired.
We are not losing focus. We need to put a stop to deputy interference in people to attending hearings and trials. This is going on on a more than infrequent basis at the courthouse. I think that they are sorely lacking in education about what is and what is not OK and some are quite jerks about it if you question them.
One typical instance is a juvenile case where the juvenile offender specifically requested that an adult friend who had accompanied her and her mother to court be allowed to come into the hearing with her. The deputy at the door denied the request and the friend/mentor had to remain outside for the hearing. The deputy clearly did not understand that the juvenile can request anyone they want to attend their own hearing for support.
I’ve heard other instances where the deputy was overheard hollering the name of juvenile offenders down the hallway when it was their turn to be seen, violating the juvenile’s right to confidentiality. My thought at the time was “what a complete doofus.”
What really needs to happen is that the deputies need to provide security only and let other people who are educated in civil rights and law to operate the courts.
I think that the Yolo County Courthouse is truely inadequate with multiple side entrances and court rooms scattered around. Some deputies are really on their own at the remote locations and it invites disparity in enforcement of rules, depending on their own minimal understanding of the law. The new courthouse can’t be built fast enough.
My reaction to the latest fiasco is again, “What a complete doofus!” to think that he could lock the public out and be able to control who can and cannot attend. A real idiot who has damaged the reputation of the court. He should be fired.
We are not losing focus. We need to put a stop to deputy interference in people to attending hearings and trials. This is going on on a more than infrequent basis at the courthouse. I think that they are sorely lacking in education about what is and what is not OK and some are quite jerks about it if you question them.
One typical instance is a juvenile case where the juvenile offender specifically requested that an adult friend who had accompanied her and her mother to court be allowed to come into the hearing with her. The deputy at the door denied the request and the friend/mentor had to remain outside for the hearing. The deputy clearly did not understand that the juvenile can request anyone they want to attend their own hearing for support.
I’ve heard other instances where the deputy was overheard hollering the name of juvenile offenders down the hallway when it was their turn to be seen, violating the juvenile’s right to confidentiality. My thought at the time was “what a complete doofus.”
What really needs to happen is that the deputies need to provide security only and let other people who are educated in civil rights and law to operate the courts.
I think that the Yolo County Courthouse is truely inadequate with multiple side entrances and court rooms scattered around. Some deputies are really on their own at the remote locations and it invites disparity in enforcement of rules, depending on their own minimal understanding of the law. The new courthouse can’t be built fast enough.
My reaction to the latest fiasco is again, “What a complete doofus!” to think that he could lock the public out and be able to control who can and cannot attend. A real idiot who has damaged the reputation of the court. He should be fired.
We are not losing focus. We need to put a stop to deputy interference in people to attending hearings and trials. This is going on on a more than infrequent basis at the courthouse. I think that they are sorely lacking in education about what is and what is not OK and some are quite jerks about it if you question them.
One typical instance is a juvenile case where the juvenile offender specifically requested that an adult friend who had accompanied her and her mother to court be allowed to come into the hearing with her. The deputy at the door denied the request and the friend/mentor had to remain outside for the hearing. The deputy clearly did not understand that the juvenile can request anyone they want to attend their own hearing for support.
I’ve heard other instances where the deputy was overheard hollering the name of juvenile offenders down the hallway when it was their turn to be seen, violating the juvenile’s right to confidentiality. My thought at the time was “what a complete doofus.”
What really needs to happen is that the deputies need to provide security only and let other people who are educated in civil rights and law to operate the courts.
I think that the Yolo County Courthouse is truely inadequate with multiple side entrances and court rooms scattered around. Some deputies are really on their own at the remote locations and it invites disparity in enforcement of rules, depending on their own minimal understanding of the law. The new courthouse can’t be built fast enough.
My reaction to the latest fiasco is again, “What a complete doofus!” to think that he could lock the public out and be able to control who can and cannot attend. A real idiot who has damaged the reputation of the court. He should be fired.
Anonymous said…
To Richard Estes: it’s hard to believe that you’re a bigger blowhard than DPD. Sheesh, man!
6/23/08 2:31 PM
Where have you been?
This has always been true.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
To Richard Estes: it’s hard to believe that you’re a bigger blowhard than DPD. Sheesh, man!
6/23/08 2:31 PM
Where have you been?
This has always been true.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
To Richard Estes: it’s hard to believe that you’re a bigger blowhard than DPD. Sheesh, man!
6/23/08 2:31 PM
Where have you been?
This has always been true.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
To Richard Estes: it’s hard to believe that you’re a bigger blowhard than DPD. Sheesh, man!
6/23/08 2:31 PM
Where have you been?
This has always been true.
–Richard Estes
Just to let you folks know, I’ll have Peter Scheer from the California First Amendment Coalition on the radio show on Wednesday talking about this issue.
Just to let you folks know, I’ll have Peter Scheer from the California First Amendment Coalition on the radio show on Wednesday talking about this issue.
Just to let you folks know, I’ll have Peter Scheer from the California First Amendment Coalition on the radio show on Wednesday talking about this issue.
Just to let you folks know, I’ll have Peter Scheer from the California First Amendment Coalition on the radio show on Wednesday talking about this issue.
Agreed, the loser judge stevens was/is one of the biggest clowns to ever sit in judgement of others.
Even though rosenberg is somewhat of a personal abberation, he is not completely responsible for the mess in this case. Although it would be be nice to nail him for it.
Is the defendant going to get a fair trial? Yes he will. It will probably not be mentioned that he has been a useless criminal mexican gang banger most of his worthless life. Also they probably won’t mention that he is a wife beater and a child abuser.
They might bring up the fact that he did drive 100 mph in an attempt to avoid arrest while simultaneously endangering his child and the general public. It may be mentioned, that the defendant did in fact, (not an allegation), shoot and kill Sgt. Diaz because he does not value life.
Maybe they’ll just let him go with some counseling and time off for good behavior
Agreed, the loser judge stevens was/is one of the biggest clowns to ever sit in judgement of others.
Even though rosenberg is somewhat of a personal abberation, he is not completely responsible for the mess in this case. Although it would be be nice to nail him for it.
Is the defendant going to get a fair trial? Yes he will. It will probably not be mentioned that he has been a useless criminal mexican gang banger most of his worthless life. Also they probably won’t mention that he is a wife beater and a child abuser.
They might bring up the fact that he did drive 100 mph in an attempt to avoid arrest while simultaneously endangering his child and the general public. It may be mentioned, that the defendant did in fact, (not an allegation), shoot and kill Sgt. Diaz because he does not value life.
Maybe they’ll just let him go with some counseling and time off for good behavior
Agreed, the loser judge stevens was/is one of the biggest clowns to ever sit in judgement of others.
Even though rosenberg is somewhat of a personal abberation, he is not completely responsible for the mess in this case. Although it would be be nice to nail him for it.
Is the defendant going to get a fair trial? Yes he will. It will probably not be mentioned that he has been a useless criminal mexican gang banger most of his worthless life. Also they probably won’t mention that he is a wife beater and a child abuser.
They might bring up the fact that he did drive 100 mph in an attempt to avoid arrest while simultaneously endangering his child and the general public. It may be mentioned, that the defendant did in fact, (not an allegation), shoot and kill Sgt. Diaz because he does not value life.
Maybe they’ll just let him go with some counseling and time off for good behavior
Agreed, the loser judge stevens was/is one of the biggest clowns to ever sit in judgement of others.
Even though rosenberg is somewhat of a personal abberation, he is not completely responsible for the mess in this case. Although it would be be nice to nail him for it.
Is the defendant going to get a fair trial? Yes he will. It will probably not be mentioned that he has been a useless criminal mexican gang banger most of his worthless life. Also they probably won’t mention that he is a wife beater and a child abuser.
They might bring up the fact that he did drive 100 mph in an attempt to avoid arrest while simultaneously endangering his child and the general public. It may be mentioned, that the defendant did in fact, (not an allegation), shoot and kill Sgt. Diaz because he does not value life.
Maybe they’ll just let him go with some counseling and time off for good behavior
I think we need to separate the issue of the horrific crime he committed and the procedures of the court.
I talked to someone today who suggested that the DA’s office should re-do the arraignment just to make sure this whole thing doesn’t get invalidated due to snafus that have nothing to do with guilt and innocence. We go through a whole trial only to go through another whole trial.
I think we need to separate the issue of the horrific crime he committed and the procedures of the court.
I talked to someone today who suggested that the DA’s office should re-do the arraignment just to make sure this whole thing doesn’t get invalidated due to snafus that have nothing to do with guilt and innocence. We go through a whole trial only to go through another whole trial.
I think we need to separate the issue of the horrific crime he committed and the procedures of the court.
I talked to someone today who suggested that the DA’s office should re-do the arraignment just to make sure this whole thing doesn’t get invalidated due to snafus that have nothing to do with guilt and innocence. We go through a whole trial only to go through another whole trial.
I think we need to separate the issue of the horrific crime he committed and the procedures of the court.
I talked to someone today who suggested that the DA’s office should re-do the arraignment just to make sure this whole thing doesn’t get invalidated due to snafus that have nothing to do with guilt and innocence. We go through a whole trial only to go through another whole trial.
I should add this final point: when the government screws up they put all of the issues raised by anonymous by the wayside as they lose focus of the criminal. Due process is what ultimately stands between democracy and tyranny. That’s the point the person from the First Amendment Coalition raised.
I should add this final point: when the government screws up they put all of the issues raised by anonymous by the wayside as they lose focus of the criminal. Due process is what ultimately stands between democracy and tyranny. That’s the point the person from the First Amendment Coalition raised.
I should add this final point: when the government screws up they put all of the issues raised by anonymous by the wayside as they lose focus of the criminal. Due process is what ultimately stands between democracy and tyranny. That’s the point the person from the First Amendment Coalition raised.
I should add this final point: when the government screws up they put all of the issues raised by anonymous by the wayside as they lose focus of the criminal. Due process is what ultimately stands between democracy and tyranny. That’s the point the person from the First Amendment Coalition raised.
Presiding Judge David Rosenberg will fix whatever institutional issues exist where these public matters are not being heard properly. The Commission seems one of the common elements of the mistakes being made. I agree with DPD: the arraignment obviously should be held again, to ensure we dont have a Supreme Court case 10 years down the road that invalidates the entire prosecution. The mistake as to the conduct of the arraignment will probably result in the case being moved to another county. The prosecutor’s office should do it sua sponte (on its own motion): again, who needs a reversal 10 years down the road for this process issue? Given the horrible facts of the case, a jury in another county would probably result in the same verdict.
Presiding Judge David Rosenberg will fix whatever institutional issues exist where these public matters are not being heard properly. The Commission seems one of the common elements of the mistakes being made. I agree with DPD: the arraignment obviously should be held again, to ensure we dont have a Supreme Court case 10 years down the road that invalidates the entire prosecution. The mistake as to the conduct of the arraignment will probably result in the case being moved to another county. The prosecutor’s office should do it sua sponte (on its own motion): again, who needs a reversal 10 years down the road for this process issue? Given the horrible facts of the case, a jury in another county would probably result in the same verdict.
Presiding Judge David Rosenberg will fix whatever institutional issues exist where these public matters are not being heard properly. The Commission seems one of the common elements of the mistakes being made. I agree with DPD: the arraignment obviously should be held again, to ensure we dont have a Supreme Court case 10 years down the road that invalidates the entire prosecution. The mistake as to the conduct of the arraignment will probably result in the case being moved to another county. The prosecutor’s office should do it sua sponte (on its own motion): again, who needs a reversal 10 years down the road for this process issue? Given the horrible facts of the case, a jury in another county would probably result in the same verdict.
Presiding Judge David Rosenberg will fix whatever institutional issues exist where these public matters are not being heard properly. The Commission seems one of the common elements of the mistakes being made. I agree with DPD: the arraignment obviously should be held again, to ensure we dont have a Supreme Court case 10 years down the road that invalidates the entire prosecution. The mistake as to the conduct of the arraignment will probably result in the case being moved to another county. The prosecutor’s office should do it sua sponte (on its own motion): again, who needs a reversal 10 years down the road for this process issue? Given the horrible facts of the case, a jury in another county would probably result in the same verdict.
I agree with mike harrington. We don’t need a reversal 10 years down the road because some attorney thinks he/she is standing up for due process, along with making a lot of money. Perhaps we could also re-do the crime and bring Sgt. Diaz back? You are right about rosenberg, he has always fixed those things that served his purposes.
I agree with mike harrington. We don’t need a reversal 10 years down the road because some attorney thinks he/she is standing up for due process, along with making a lot of money. Perhaps we could also re-do the crime and bring Sgt. Diaz back? You are right about rosenberg, he has always fixed those things that served his purposes.
I agree with mike harrington. We don’t need a reversal 10 years down the road because some attorney thinks he/she is standing up for due process, along with making a lot of money. Perhaps we could also re-do the crime and bring Sgt. Diaz back? You are right about rosenberg, he has always fixed those things that served his purposes.
I agree with mike harrington. We don’t need a reversal 10 years down the road because some attorney thinks he/she is standing up for due process, along with making a lot of money. Perhaps we could also re-do the crime and bring Sgt. Diaz back? You are right about rosenberg, he has always fixed those things that served his purposes.
to Anon:
“You are right about rosenberg, he has always fixed those things that served his purposes.”
If you are going to insult the presiding judge, do it with your name out there. and name examples of what you did not like. Otherwise, shut up.
to Anon:
“You are right about rosenberg, he has always fixed those things that served his purposes.”
If you are going to insult the presiding judge, do it with your name out there. and name examples of what you did not like. Otherwise, shut up.
to Anon:
“You are right about rosenberg, he has always fixed those things that served his purposes.”
If you are going to insult the presiding judge, do it with your name out there. and name examples of what you did not like. Otherwise, shut up.
to Anon:
“You are right about rosenberg, he has always fixed those things that served his purposes.”
If you are going to insult the presiding judge, do it with your name out there. and name examples of what you did not like. Otherwise, shut up.
Mike,
The way Yolo County courts are run maybe someone can’t use their real name for fear of retaliation.
People don’t need to shut up they need to speak up.
Mike,
The way Yolo County courts are run maybe someone can’t use their real name for fear of retaliation.
People don’t need to shut up they need to speak up.
Mike,
The way Yolo County courts are run maybe someone can’t use their real name for fear of retaliation.
People don’t need to shut up they need to speak up.
Mike,
The way Yolo County courts are run maybe someone can’t use their real name for fear of retaliation.
People don’t need to shut up they need to speak up.
There are extremely serious problems in the administration of the Yolo County Superior Court. These articles don’t begin to scratch the surface of it.
The public appears to be not yet aware of the fact that the California Judicial Performance Commission paid an investigative visit to the Yolo County Superior Court last month because of the sheer volume of complaints it has received regarding the conduct of Yolo County judges. The fact that the Yolo County Superior Court would lock out the public in such a high profile case when it knows that it is under the critical scrutiny of the California Judicial Performance Commission speaks volumes to the colossal, sick level of arrogance which has poisoned the administration of justice here. That arrogance includes alterations to the court’s website to remove any identification or contact information for court administration, and to stop posting the court’s full daily calendar for public information.
The California Judicial Council needs to create a complaint system so that when people observe or experience judicial administrative problems they can be reported, independently investigated, and addressed, and so that judicial administration is at least quasi-independently monitored. The Administrative Office of the Courts does not accept public complaints regarding specific instances of judicial maladminstration. I tried. The answer is always the same. Go back to the judges who are the problem and who have the power to retaliate against you.
Instead, the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The Judicial Council makes court rules and policies which it does not enforce. In the Sacramento Bee, the Judicial Council’s Vickery promises more of the same. No new rules or laws are needed because the current law on public trials is very clear already. Enforcement is needed. Instead, the Judicial Council has a number for court staff to call if they want to report something (not likely for them to report themselves), but no number for the public to call to make reports; when I discovered its existence and called it, nobody ever called me back. Now the Judicial Council just refers potential complainants back to the judges that are the problem.
The judges also make up their local administrative court rules on their own, and if those court rules are unlawful, there is no administrative procedure for the swift and efficient correction of illegal procedures. I have observed the Yolo County Superior Court to have illegal rules and differential enforcement of the rules. A good example is Local Rule 16.2, which requires a defendant to enter a plea without first having an opportunity to consult with counsel in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights and which states that entry of a plea is not waiver of a right to demur in direct contradiction to Penal Code sec. 1004: “The defendant may demur to the accusatory pleading at any time prior to the entry of a plea” and Penal Code sec. 1012 “When any of the objections mentioned in Section 1004 appears on the face of the accusatory pleading, it can be taken only by demurrer, and failure so to take it shall be deemed a waiver thereof . . .” Of course, the rule it replaced was much worse, instructing a defense attorney to enter a not guilty plea unless the defendant protested. Don’t think they replaced it without being pressured. This rule also violates Penal Code 990: “ If on the arraignment, the defendant requires it, the defendant must be allowed a reasonable time to answer, which shall be not less than one day in a felony case and not more than seven days in a misdemeanor or infraction case.”
The judges also have their customary practices, and I did observe illegal practices at the Yolo County Superior Court, including at the Yolo County Superior Court Clerk’s Office under the control and direction of the judges. The latter included but were not limited to interference with and denial of examination of the court files, the failure and refusal to issue fee waivers granted by operation of law in violation of the California Rules of Court, the unlawful refusal to file Marsden motions for substitution of counsel by defendants, and the unlawful refusal to file papers for a defendant unless counsel personally traveled to the court from another county to file them.
All challenges to the rules or the manner in which they are enforced or not enforced, and likewise to any unlawful customary practices, have to be done in the courts at great expense by people with judicial standing. Enforcement of the California Rules of Court and local Yolo County rules is up to the judges. This leaves the judges free to manipulate the court administration and staff to advantage the county in any judicial proceeding in which they wish.
The staff are trained to obey the judges, not the court rules, even when the court rules specifically direct clerks as to what they are to do. When judges direct the clerks to violate the rules, the clerks violate the rules.
The Judicial Performance Commission disciplines the judges for violations of judicial ethics, but has no ethical rules which specifically address administrative misconduct.
All of the articles show authorities responding to the reporters’ complaints but the fact is when you or I complain, there is a haughty silence, because the powers that be do not regard the public as of sufficient importance for them to be answerable to them, since the public is powerless by comparison to the newspapers. Vickery of the Judicial Council speaks with the Sacramento Bee, but he will not speak to any of you.
If anyone believes the public apologies and admissions, I ask you, why hasn’t the Yolo County Superior Court used its inherent authority to vacate the arraignment and order a change of venue or at least calendar a new arraignment? That is the measure of sincerity.
If anyone believes the closure of the courtroom was just a mistake, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell to you. The fact that it was no mistake is proven by Prieto’s refusal to identify or discipline the allegedly responsible bailiff.
If anyone believes the decision was an emotional one, you might like to buy the Golden Gate Bridge, too. Certainly at least some of those deputies were on duty and therefore at work and getting paid for their actions.
None of these articles have examined even the issue of public hearings from the point of view of the defendant. Unless you have experienced it, it’s difficult to grasp just how intimidating it is to be surrounded by aggressive men whose stock in trade is violence. At critical points during the very heated case I observed, the courtroom was flooded with law enforcement, the atmosphere was very tense, and the message of aggression was impossible to ignore. No matter how strong you are, or for defendants, how innocent, it is an extremely uncomfortable experience. In fact, at one such hearing one supporter became so fearful she refused to ever return to court again. The defendant in question at times had law enforcement specifically instructed to physically intimidate her, including surrounding the defendant in chambers during a Marsden motion to remove the public defender; the defendant said she felt she could not speak freely, because any statement she made could have been misinterpreted as an excuse to take her into custody. Therefore, I believe the deputies were there to make a show of force to intimidate the defendant, his defense attorney, his family, and any witnesses who might step forward to testify on his behalf. The deputies were there to make a public display intended to influence the potential juror pool. They were sending a clear message to the defendant that he would not receive a fair trial. It was a form of obstruction of justice and denial of defendant’s constitutional rights. There have been more mentions of the reporters’ first amendment rights than there have of the defendant’s right under the California Constitution, Article 1, sec. 15 “The defendant in a criminal cause has the right to a speedy public trial . . .” or his right to a fair trial and due process of law.
Court administrator Perry is not an attorney, yet he is giving legal opinions. Perry is the judges’ stooge. He can give false legal opinions with impunity. Nobody is going to prosecute him for practicing law without a license on behalf of the Yolo County Superior Court. The sheriffs and security guards employed at the Yolo County Superior Court are there under the direction and control of the judges. There are a lot of judges, and it’s likely that those directly responsible for what occurred are a subgroup of those judges, whom it may be challenging to identify.
So much for liars. Here is the truth about the legal definion of a public trial.
The constitutional right to a public trial includes public pretrial proceedings as well. Here is relevant case law:
See http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/259/826.html&search=chambers+public+trial
People v. Valenzuela , 259 Cal.App.2d 826
[Crim. No. 13312. Second Dist., Div. Three. Mar. 7, 1968.]
“. . . . In the present case the waiver of jury trial was made in court, and it was in open court if the public was not excluded.
We do not believe that “in open court” means any more or less than “public trial,” which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
A court session which is “public” is also “open” and it is appropriate to look to the definitions of “public trial.”
“Under normal conditions a public trial is one which is open to the general public at all times.” (People v. Byrnes, 84 Cal.App.2d 72 , 73 [190 P.2d 290].)
[1c] “The trial should be public in the ordinary common-sense acceptation of the term. The doors of the courtroom are expected to be kept open, the public are entitled to be admitted, and the trial is to be public in all respects, as we have before suggested, with due regard to the size of the courtroom, the conveniences of the court, the right to exclude objectionable [259 Cal.App.2d 832] characters and youth of tender years, and to do other things which may facilitate the proper conduct of the trial.” (People v. Hartman, 103 Cal. 242, 245 [37 P. 153, 42 Am. St. Rep. 108].) . . . .
In People v. Cash, 52 Cal.2d 841 [345 P.2d 462], the trial was moved from the courtroom to the judge’s chambers for the purpose of playing a tape recording and this fact was urged as a basis for the claim that the defendant was deprived of a public trial. The court stated (p. 846): “The full court (judge, clerk, bailiff, reporter, defendant and both counsel) took part in these sessions in chambers and no objection was raised prior to appeal. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the sessions in chambers were not public. It is not claimed that the door between the courtroom and the chambers was closed, and there is no indication that any member of the press or public who desired access would have been barred from entering the chambers.”
So there you have it. For the trial to be public, the door had to have been open and unlocked.
You have to understand that the judges are in charge, and the judicial canons of ethics which restrict their communications protect them from answering questions about their activities by giving them a plausible excuse for their silence. See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf
The negative attention directed at Commissioner Beronio is unfair. In my observation in one particular case, Commissioner Beronio was very conscientious in her work. As a commissioner, Beronio is just a subordinate judicial officer subject to the supervision of the judges. Indeed, Beronio did in fact order the bailiff to open the court door according to the Sacramento Bee editorial, but he refused to comply with her order. It’s likely that is because he was complying with a judge’s instructions. Comments were posted on the Sacramento Bee website questioning why she failed to hold the bailiff in contempt. I can see one of two possibilities; either she recognized the bailiff’s refusal as subtle communication that the judges wanted it otherwise and had so instructed him, or she herself was intimidated by the mob of law enforcement. After all, does she have a loyal private army able to physically take on forty sheriffs? Who would have taken the bailiff into custody for her, if not the sheriffs? If she did so when the judges wanted it otherwise, would she still have a job?
In the past, arraignments, which include the assignment of a case to a judge, were held by judges. It has escaped public attention that Judge Stephen Mock, who was Presiding Judge at the time, created a new system for arraignments and assignments which involved hiring Commissioner Beronio, who became the only person with the authority to assign judges in the Yolo County Superior Court. Mock apparently did this to evade the grounds for his disqualification in the statement of disqualification filed in the CHP killing case, which included an objection to him assigning judges while his wife, Ann Hurd, Yolo County Chief Deputy Prosecutor, assigned attorneys to the same cases. Mock could advantage his wife by assigning criminal cases to the judges desired by the District Attorney’s Office. The new system made it appear judges were assigned independently, although Beronio, as a commissioner, was still subject to judicial supervision, including that of Mock. Nevertheless, Mock successfully evaded disqualification, and later sentenced the defendant to death. This is the type of devious and willful maneuvering that goes on in the Yolo County Superior Court.
I have read comments on this issue by members of the public who do not understand the critical importance of public witnesses being able to attend a hearing.
If legal action needs to be taken immediately before a transcript can be prepared, witnesses can help establish what was said and occurred; frequently an attorney is focusing on the argument or his own presentation and can easily miss something. Transcripts are unreliable in the best of circumstances; reporters cannot always keep up with what is said, people talk over each other, and people have different accents which can be difficult to understand.
Witnesses are the only evidence of things happening that will never appear on a transcript; the transcript does not cover things like defendants being directed to stand far away and separate from, or on the other side of the court bar from, defense attorneys during hearings to interfere with their ability to consult with them, a bailiff being gestured to creep up right behind a defendant to intimidate that person, the defendant being surrounded by a cloud of law enforcement personnel for intimidation purposes, or attorneys being forced to consult with defendants while they are chained together in violation of attorney-client privilege. Transcripts are not a witness to racism, because they do not identify the race of the person to whom the judge is speaking.
I have seen all of these things at the Yolo County Superior Court. Some may think these things are not important, but that’s because you presume those arrested are guilty; Yolo County habitually and intentionally arrests the factually innocent for profit and intimidates, harasses and coerces innocent people into taking pleas. It would take a concealed videotape system throughout the building to temper the corrupt conduct that goes on within the Yolo County Superior Court.
However, even more importantly, witnesses are the only check on the court falsifying transcripts and the only alternative for people who cannot afford transcripts, which are very expensive. Witnesses are also the only alternative for defendants representing themselves, because although they are entitled to have free transcripts, the Yolo County Superior Court does not observe that right, preferring to pressure the person who chooses to represent himself by withholding the resources he needs. [The Court Reporters Board has a fund but it is very restrictive in its policies as to whom it will assist, and will not assist anyone who has been unrepresented at any stage of a proceeding.] I personally witnessed the abuse of the transcript system, including the production and sale of false transcripts, the refusal to produce transcripts, the ignoring and failing to respond to the request for production of transcripts, the delay in the production of transcripts needed for time-sensitive matters, especially until the use to which the transcript was to be put was identified, and then the transcript was produced, having been altered to excise the critical passages.
I have seen transcripts that were falsified from the Yolo County Superior Court more times than I can count. As an example, Judge Doris Shockley threatened to sue a defendant after the latter filed a statement of disqualification against her which had been served on her that day. The transcript was delayed until after a second statement of disqualification citing the threat had to be filed and served without an incorporated transcript. The word “sue” was changed to “see” in the transcript that was only then produced. Judge Shockley, in her response under penalty of perjury to the statement of disqualification, did not deny having threatened to sue the defendant, but instead deferred to the transcript, while suggesting she could have been misunderstood.
The Yolo County Superior Court jealously guards the power to falsify transcripts by refusing to permit audio or video recording within the courthouse. In the case I observed, the defendant, after having received fraudulent transcripts on several occasions, requested permission to record; the court denied that permission, stating that was the purpose of the court reporter. When the defendant replied the court reporter was not accurate, the judge did not even contradict the statement. It is inconceivable that the court reporter would have been altering the transcripts without involvement by the judges, with whom they work closely, and acquiescence by others who stood to gain. In one instance where the defendant sought a transcript which the reporter failed and refused to deliver, the defendant filed a complaint with the Court Reporters Board, only to be attacked by the judge for intimidating “my” court reporter.
The Court Reporters Board is useless because it refuses to investigate intentionally falsified transcripts without a detailed transcript of alleged errors, which amounts to a demand to know if you have taped in violation of court rules. The press heat in this case is the reason for the rapid production of a transcript whose accuracy has not been challenged.
If you research the case law, you will find that bad transcripts in criminal cases have frequently been an issue—and a weapon–in the judicial system; the infamous case of Caryl Chessman, executed under Governor Pat Brown, comes to mind. In San Francisco, they have addressed this admirably and efficiently with a real time computerized transcript system that is improving the quality of justice for all.
I eventually came to the conclusion that the primary benefit for Yolo County of not having a videotape and audiotape system and prohibiting taping by anyone else was to facilitate corruption and injustice for the financial benefit of Yolo County. Financial benefit includes frivolous cases in which prosecutions have been pursued to avoid Yolo County liability. Additionally, People do not realize that Yolo County makes money from those unable to adequately defend themselves against frivolous criminal charges or unable to withstand intimidation and coercion. Every plea deal means money for the county, often from its poorest and most unfortunate residents, because of substantial money demands that are often made part of the deal, sometimes without prior notice to the defendant. For most cases that drag on for a long time, there is a state or federal grant the amount of which depends on how many cases, how long they drag on, and how many convictions. I understand at least half of the Yolo County District Attorney’s budget comes from these entrepreneurial prosecutions. The Yolo County Public Defender also makes money for the county. Yolo County charges defendants $175/hour—which is usually more than what the service actually costs– for the services of the public defender or a conflict attorney; Yolo County, including the judges and public defenders, conceals this information from the defendants to obtain their consent for representation by fraud and then if they are convicted, they are stuck with the bill, payment of which is extorted through the abuse of process of the criminal justice system. The Miranda warning is “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” In California, that needs to be changed to add “on credit” at the end. Defendants don’t know about Penal Code 987.8, which authorizes a post trial wallet biopsy, with a full bill sent to anyone who doesn’t appear for it. Since the defendants don’t know they are running up a huge bill, they don’t protest while the Yolo County Public Defender goes to court over and over for continuances. Yolo County farms its residents for profit.
I have read comments from members of the public who do not understand the importance of an arraignment. A defendant has very specific rights at an arraignment and witnesses are necessary because in Yolo County, those rights are ignored and violated routinely.
On the very first court date of the case I attended, I also thought I would be attending a routine arraignment where nothing of significance would occur. I was shocked at what I saw and heard. I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard the arraignment judge explain to the African-American defendant, whom he didn’t know and had never seen before, that the defendant could not be trusted with a copy of the complaint, that we like to give that to the attorney, and that the defendant might lose the copy and the court doesn’t want to have to make another copy. Never in my life had I witnessed naked racism of this nature. A second African-American person later complained to me at a civil rights meeting he had a similar experience and continued to struggle to see the complaint against him.
The presence of Ann Hurd at the arraignment became very significant later when Judge Mock sat on the case at the same time he was executing a declaration for the California Court of Appeal under penalty of perjury declaring that he and his wife had never been on the same case. Nobody should presume an arraignment is insignificant. I learned a lot that day.
Refusing to give a copy of the complaint to an unrepresented defendant, violates the California Constitution Article 1, sec. 14 “The magistrate shall immediately give the defendant a copy of the complaint”, Penal Code 988: “The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or prosecuting attorney under its direction, and consists in reading the accusatory pleading to the defendant and delivering to the defendant a true copy thereof, and of the endorsements thereon, if any, including the list of witnesses . . .”and Penal Code 859 “The magistrate shall immediately deliver to the defendant a copy of the complaint”.
Try exercising your right to retain the counsel of your choice when you do not know why you have been arrested. Every attorney the defendant called declined to represent the defendant when the defendant could not explain the facts of the case. This is a tactic that is most effective against people who are completely innocent and do not know why they have been arrested. Then tell me the arraignment is an unimportant hearing
Do you think you can just go to the Yolo County Superior Court Clerk’s office and see the complaint against you? Think again. The Yolo County Clerk’s Office claimed the declaration used to obtain the warrant, which included all the facts alleged, was discovery which the defendant could not see, in violation of settled law for almost 50 years. [See People v. Sesslin, 68 Cal.2d 418 (1968), relying on Giordenello v. United States 357 U.S. 480 (1958)] and California Penal Code 813.]
Obviously, the judges created this unlawful but customary court practice of refusing to let
the defendant see the complaint against him. It advantages the prosecution massively while violating the defendant’s constitutional right to retain counsel of his choice, along with his constitutional right to due process of law. It makes money for the county by forcing the public defender on someone who can’t hire a lawyer because he doesn’t know any facts about the accusations against him. It also aids the public defender who can more easily manipulate the defendant into a plea if he also keeps the defendant in the dark, as did the public defender first appointed in the case I observed.
The judges and court staff were involved in a number of unlawful customary practices together. An example of one which I was told about by a county employee is clerical issuance of arrest warrants, i.e. the clerks do it instead of the judges, who are supposed to be reviewing the warrant applications and personally making determinations of probable cause. That helps the Yolo District Attorney to arrest innocent people for profit. Judges were not issuing or permitting clerks to issue fee waivers for copies in violation of California Rules of Court, because as the clerk said “That’s how we make our money.” Judges and court staff collaborated to prevent litigants from serving statements of disqualification on judges by denying them access to the court clerk or judge for direct service as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure sec. 170.3(c)(1).
I have also read Rexroad’s jump-to- a-conclusion comment on his blog, and many other similar comments which attempt to characterize what occurred the other day as an isolated instance. Rexroad, as a Yolo County official, I am not surprised to see you shilling for Yolo County. Neither your nor other similar comments are based on any serious factual investigation. Most such comments probably represent wishful thinking. Closing courtrooms and denying defendants a public trial is both routine and customary as a tactic to influence the outcome of cases in the Yolo County Superior Court in violation of a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
The defendant’s right to a public trial includes the right to be present in a judge’s chambers when court is being conducted there, as discussed in the Valenzuela case above. However, the Yolo County Superior Court has a customary practice of holding chambers conferences before any hearing and excluding defendants and the public from attending those conferences. Most issues are decided secretly at the chambers conferences for the most part, with the hearings on the record actually being pro forma announcements of the decisions already made by the court. In other counties, chambers conferences are always attended by a court reporter, but not in Yolo County. Maybe some judges or commissioners in Yolo County use a court reporter in chambers, but in the case I observed, when transcripts were requested, the reply was always that there was no court reporter present and no record of the conference. Everyone disappeared, came out, and a decision was announced to the defendant from the bench.
Even when the defendant represented herself, that defendant was left outside while the judge met with the deputy district attorney in chambers in violation of judicial ethics prohibitions against ex parte communication. We later confirmed with a bailiff that he was trained to bar defendants from entering the chambers. I have no doubt that if this practice had been previously exposed, the court would be claiming a mistake, just as it is doing now. There is no doubt that this practice was used to harm the defendant in the case I observed; I am told that in chambers in the presence of the defendant’s attorney, Judge Fall admitted the statute of limitations had passed, which meant charges he planned to dismiss could not be re-filed-–but outside in the courtroom on the record, he dismissed the charges without prejudice, as a last slap at the innocent defendant, to create a false appearance she could be re-arrested.
Imagine that you are a defendant and your public defender has been bribed to have you convicted. He goes into chambers without you and lies about you, telling the judge you are guilty or crazy; you don’t even know you are being sold down the river by your own attorney, so you can’t protect yourself. Now imagine you also don’t find out the judge is in on it because you are sitting outside in the cold. Something like that happened in the case I observed. That is why there is a constitutional requirement for public hearings.
Now imagine you want to complain about it to a higher court. In the Valenzuela case footnote, the court says you have to have placed on the record evidence you were excluded—but the Yolo County Superior Court holds the secret conferences without going on the record, doesn’t allow you to speak, makes you stand behind the old-fashioned court bar away from the microphone, uses aggressive law enforcement officers to intimidate you into silence and if you do say something, the court reporter doesn’t include it in the transcript. Now what can you do? When your corrupt attorney refuses to try to get you into chambers, should you ask that he be replaced? Well, how are you going to do that when the Yolo County Clerk’s Office won’t file a Marsden motion for substitution for you in violation of case law that requires it to do so—because the presiding judge told them not to do it? That is how the Yolo County Superior Court has abused judicial administration to influence the outcome of cases.
In 2006, I witnessed a defendant who had been directed to appear before Judge Doris Shockley in her courtroom, and whose name appeared on the calendar, locked out of that courtroom in a conspiracy to falsely arrest that defendant for failure to appear in order to pressure that defendant, who was factually innocent and had demanded a defense, to falsely take a plea. While the defendant waited outside, the public defender assigned to the defendant came by, saw the defendant, and went down the stairs. A Yolo County District Attorney’s investigator had both of us under surveillance. Only when I became very suspicious and advised the defendant to bang on the door a second time, did we learn the case had been moved; while the case was moved, the same public defender who had seen the defendant was calling the defendant’s home, pretending he was trying to locate the defendant. When the DA investigator heard me tell the defendant I suspected a setup for a false arrest, he ran to the elevator like a rabbit. Only by the skin of the defendant’s teeth did the defendant escape false arrest, because the retired judge to which the case had been reassigned even refused to allow her to address him. Later, the defendant’s question to him, “May I speak?” and his response, refusing to allow her to speak, was excised from the transcript for which the defendant paid cash. I, along with other witnesses, were present, and I have no doubt, that had we not been present, the defendant would have been falsely re-arrested and jailed to give the prosecution an advantage in attempting to convict a wholly innocent person, who was in fact a crime victim.
At a subsequent critical motion hearing nearing the end of the case, the Yolo County Superior Court replaced their usual courtroom staff with substitutes. After I entered the courtroom accompanied by African-Americans, I was accosted and falsely accused of chewing gum, and ordered out of the courtroom. I had to threaten court administration with a civil rights lawsuit before I was allowed to enter the courtroom in time to hear Judge Mock unethically advocating for the prosecution in a case in which deputy DA Jay Linden declined to make any argument. At the next hearing, I observed the bailiff and another security officer chewing gum. I checked the court rules, and found out there was no rule against chewing gum.
When the Yolo County Superior Court was finally forced to dismiss the case, which I believe was due in substantial part to pressure from outside the court, the case was moved to a smaller courtroom before Judge Timothy Fall. Family and friends had gathered in anticipation of what they hoped would be a dismissal, but immediately the bailiff claimed there was no room and asked everyone to leave other than the defendant and her attorney. I stayed but the defendant’s family and other friends left. They were told they would be called in when the case was called. Once outside the courtroom, the bailiff came out and ordered them to go far down the hall. So they had to go sit by the elevators down the hall. During the chambers conference, I am told DA Jay Linden falsely stated to Judge Fall that the defendant’s friends and family would be disruptive, and Judge Fall said he wasn’t about to permit them to disrupt his courtroom. In years of litigation, the defendant’s friends and family had never disrupted the courtroom, but the hearing was held without them being present. Had there been a disruption, the court would have been entitled to ask them to leave, but as it was done, a public hearing was denied. The real reason was sour grapes and sore losers.
I want to add that in the initial years of the case I have mentioned, we had serious difficulties securing entrance to the courthouse through the downstairs entrance, and I was even threatened with arrest in objecting to the harassment. We expended serious time and resources in opposing the obstruction of our entry into the courthouse.
Davis is more cosmopolitan than the rest of Yolo County. I, like many Davis residents, am a displaced urbanite. We do not truly get that Yolo County remains a backwards, rural county in the worst sense of that description. The very rural courts resemble the worst stereotype of what we understand a backwards rural place to be. The Yolo County Superior Court is a pre-Civil Rights era Deep South court. The defendant felt she was in the 1940s Deep South. I agreed we were in the Deep South but I would have gone back way farther in time than the 1940s. Worse, we have no Atticus Finch [the lawyer in To Kill a Mockingbird] in Yolo County. However, what has struck me is that the Yolo County Superior Court is actually operating under the laws of that era, while ignoring modern law; I have seen the Yolo County Superior Court use the pre-1968 Sesslin definition of a complaint, giving the defendant only a copy of the charges stated in the statutory language without any factual allegations, and I have seen the Yolo County Superior Court sanction legal representation of the pro forma fake quality disapproved by the United States Supreme Court in 1932 in Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0287_0045_ZS.html. I have literally stepped into the past and experienced the frustrations which previous generations fought to overcome in our judicial system, and supposedly had, but their victories are all lost in Yolo County. Unfortunately, all of the institutions whose responsibility it is to supervise this court are in civilized urban locations like San Francisco and Sacramento, and the people there don’t seem to get it either. They don’t seem to understand with what they are dealing, its seriousness, or the urgency of taking extreme measures to cut it out and down. They don’t take seriously the damage this little rural court is inflicting on people here, for lack of anything better to do.
The case discussed here is only exemplary. We discovered others. How many more there are remains to be revealed.
Nothing will clean Yolo County but perhaps the United States Department of Justice. All Yolo County residents—and all concerned members of the public– should join in supporting a full, in-depth public corruption investigation of the Yolo County Superior Court and related Yolo County offices by the United States Department of Justice. With everything that is wrong in this county, injustice can happen to any of us at any time. This type of behavior has to be stopped now. It can’t go on any further. Please call the United States Department of Justice, ask for the public corruption division, which is also at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/pubcorrupt/pubcorrupt.htm and ask them to clean up public corruption in Yolo County. The corruption hotline number is 800-376-5991. Thank you!
There are extremely serious problems in the administration of the Yolo County Superior Court. These articles don’t begin to scratch the surface of it.
The public appears to be not yet aware of the fact that the California Judicial Performance Commission paid an investigative visit to the Yolo County Superior Court last month because of the sheer volume of complaints it has received regarding the conduct of Yolo County judges. The fact that the Yolo County Superior Court would lock out the public in such a high profile case when it knows that it is under the critical scrutiny of the California Judicial Performance Commission speaks volumes to the colossal, sick level of arrogance which has poisoned the administration of justice here. That arrogance includes alterations to the court’s website to remove any identification or contact information for court administration, and to stop posting the court’s full daily calendar for public information.
The California Judicial Council needs to create a complaint system so that when people observe or experience judicial administrative problems they can be reported, independently investigated, and addressed, and so that judicial administration is at least quasi-independently monitored. The Administrative Office of the Courts does not accept public complaints regarding specific instances of judicial maladminstration. I tried. The answer is always the same. Go back to the judges who are the problem and who have the power to retaliate against you.
Instead, the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The Judicial Council makes court rules and policies which it does not enforce. In the Sacramento Bee, the Judicial Council’s Vickery promises more of the same. No new rules or laws are needed because the current law on public trials is very clear already. Enforcement is needed. Instead, the Judicial Council has a number for court staff to call if they want to report something (not likely for them to report themselves), but no number for the public to call to make reports; when I discovered its existence and called it, nobody ever called me back. Now the Judicial Council just refers potential complainants back to the judges that are the problem.
The judges also make up their local administrative court rules on their own, and if those court rules are unlawful, there is no administrative procedure for the swift and efficient correction of illegal procedures. I have observed the Yolo County Superior Court to have illegal rules and differential enforcement of the rules. A good example is Local Rule 16.2, which requires a defendant to enter a plea without first having an opportunity to consult with counsel in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights and which states that entry of a plea is not waiver of a right to demur in direct contradiction to Penal Code sec. 1004: “The defendant may demur to the accusatory pleading at any time prior to the entry of a plea” and Penal Code sec. 1012 “When any of the objections mentioned in Section 1004 appears on the face of the accusatory pleading, it can be taken only by demurrer, and failure so to take it shall be deemed a waiver thereof . . .” Of course, the rule it replaced was much worse, instructing a defense attorney to enter a not guilty plea unless the defendant protested. Don’t think they replaced it without being pressured. This rule also violates Penal Code 990: “ If on the arraignment, the defendant requires it, the defendant must be allowed a reasonable time to answer, which shall be not less than one day in a felony case and not more than seven days in a misdemeanor or infraction case.”
The judges also have their customary practices, and I did observe illegal practices at the Yolo County Superior Court, including at the Yolo County Superior Court Clerk’s Office under the control and direction of the judges. The latter included but were not limited to interference with and denial of examination of the court files, the failure and refusal to issue fee waivers granted by operation of law in violation of the California Rules of Court, the unlawful refusal to file Marsden motions for substitution of counsel by defendants, and the unlawful refusal to file papers for a defendant unless counsel personally traveled to the court from another county to file them.
All challenges to the rules or the manner in which they are enforced or not enforced, and likewise to any unlawful customary practices, have to be done in the courts at great expense by people with judicial standing. Enforcement of the California Rules of Court and local Yolo County rules is up to the judges. This leaves the judges free to manipulate the court administration and staff to advantage the county in any judicial proceeding in which they wish.
The staff are trained to obey the judges, not the court rules, even when the court rules specifically direct clerks as to what they are to do. When judges direct the clerks to violate the rules, the clerks violate the rules.
The Judicial Performance Commission disciplines the judges for violations of judicial ethics, but has no ethical rules which specifically address administrative misconduct.
All of the articles show authorities responding to the reporters’ complaints but the fact is when you or I complain, there is a haughty silence, because the powers that be do not regard the public as of sufficient importance for them to be answerable to them, since the public is powerless by comparison to the newspapers. Vickery of the Judicial Council speaks with the Sacramento Bee, but he will not speak to any of you.
If anyone believes the public apologies and admissions, I ask you, why hasn’t the Yolo County Superior Court used its inherent authority to vacate the arraignment and order a change of venue or at least calendar a new arraignment? That is the measure of sincerity.
If anyone believes the closure of the courtroom was just a mistake, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell to you. The fact that it was no mistake is proven by Prieto’s refusal to identify or discipline the allegedly responsible bailiff.
If anyone believes the decision was an emotional one, you might like to buy the Golden Gate Bridge, too. Certainly at least some of those deputies were on duty and therefore at work and getting paid for their actions.
None of these articles have examined even the issue of public hearings from the point of view of the defendant. Unless you have experienced it, it’s difficult to grasp just how intimidating it is to be surrounded by aggressive men whose stock in trade is violence. At critical points during the very heated case I observed, the courtroom was flooded with law enforcement, the atmosphere was very tense, and the message of aggression was impossible to ignore. No matter how strong you are, or for defendants, how innocent, it is an extremely uncomfortable experience. In fact, at one such hearing one supporter became so fearful she refused to ever return to court again. The defendant in question at times had law enforcement specifically instructed to physically intimidate her, including surrounding the defendant in chambers during a Marsden motion to remove the public defender; the defendant said she felt she could not speak freely, because any statement she made could have been misinterpreted as an excuse to take her into custody. Therefore, I believe the deputies were there to make a show of force to intimidate the defendant, his defense attorney, his family, and any witnesses who might step forward to testify on his behalf. The deputies were there to make a public display intended to influence the potential juror pool. They were sending a clear message to the defendant that he would not receive a fair trial. It was a form of obstruction of justice and denial of defendant’s constitutional rights. There have been more mentions of the reporters’ first amendment rights than there have of the defendant’s right under the California Constitution, Article 1, sec. 15 “The defendant in a criminal cause has the right to a speedy public trial . . .” or his right to a fair trial and due process of law.
Court administrator Perry is not an attorney, yet he is giving legal opinions. Perry is the judges’ stooge. He can give false legal opinions with impunity. Nobody is going to prosecute him for practicing law without a license on behalf of the Yolo County Superior Court. The sheriffs and security guards employed at the Yolo County Superior Court are there under the direction and control of the judges. There are a lot of judges, and it’s likely that those directly responsible for what occurred are a subgroup of those judges, whom it may be challenging to identify.
So much for liars. Here is the truth about the legal definion of a public trial.
The constitutional right to a public trial includes public pretrial proceedings as well. Here is relevant case law:
See http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/259/826.html&search=chambers+public+trial
People v. Valenzuela , 259 Cal.App.2d 826
[Crim. No. 13312. Second Dist., Div. Three. Mar. 7, 1968.]
“. . . . In the present case the waiver of jury trial was made in court, and it was in open court if the public was not excluded.
We do not believe that “in open court” means any more or less than “public trial,” which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
A court session which is “public” is also “open” and it is appropriate to look to the definitions of “public trial.”
“Under normal conditions a public trial is one which is open to the general public at all times.” (People v. Byrnes, 84 Cal.App.2d 72 , 73 [190 P.2d 290].)
[1c] “The trial should be public in the ordinary common-sense acceptation of the term. The doors of the courtroom are expected to be kept open, the public are entitled to be admitted, and the trial is to be public in all respects, as we have before suggested, with due regard to the size of the courtroom, the conveniences of the court, the right to exclude objectionable [259 Cal.App.2d 832] characters and youth of tender years, and to do other things which may facilitate the proper conduct of the trial.” (People v. Hartman, 103 Cal. 242, 245 [37 P. 153, 42 Am. St. Rep. 108].) . . . .
In People v. Cash, 52 Cal.2d 841 [345 P.2d 462], the trial was moved from the courtroom to the judge’s chambers for the purpose of playing a tape recording and this fact was urged as a basis for the claim that the defendant was deprived of a public trial. The court stated (p. 846): “The full court (judge, clerk, bailiff, reporter, defendant and both counsel) took part in these sessions in chambers and no objection was raised prior to appeal. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the sessions in chambers were not public. It is not claimed that the door between the courtroom and the chambers was closed, and there is no indication that any member of the press or public who desired access would have been barred from entering the chambers.”
So there you have it. For the trial to be public, the door had to have been open and unlocked.
You have to understand that the judges are in charge, and the judicial canons of ethics which restrict their communications protect them from answering questions about their activities by giving them a plausible excuse for their silence. See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf
The negative attention directed at Commissioner Beronio is unfair. In my observation in one particular case, Commissioner Beronio was very conscientious in her work. As a commissioner, Beronio is just a subordinate judicial officer subject to the supervision of the judges. Indeed, Beronio did in fact order the bailiff to open the court door according to the Sacramento Bee editorial, but he refused to comply with her order. It’s likely that is because he was complying with a judge’s instructions. Comments were posted on the Sacramento Bee website questioning why she failed to hold the bailiff in contempt. I can see one of two possibilities; either she recognized the bailiff’s refusal as subtle communication that the judges wanted it otherwise and had so instructed him, or she herself was intimidated by the mob of law enforcement. After all, does she have a loyal private army able to physically take on forty sheriffs? Who would have taken the bailiff into custody for her, if not the sheriffs? If she did so when the judges wanted it otherwise, would she still have a job?
In the past, arraignments, which include the assignment of a case to a judge, were held by judges. It has escaped public attention that Judge Stephen Mock, who was Presiding Judge at the time, created a new system for arraignments and assignments which involved hiring Commissioner Beronio, who became the only person with the authority to assign judges in the Yolo County Superior Court. Mock apparently did this to evade the grounds for his disqualification in the statement of disqualification filed in the CHP killing case, which included an objection to him assigning judges while his wife, Ann Hurd, Yolo County Chief Deputy Prosecutor, assigned attorneys to the same cases. Mock could advantage his wife by assigning criminal cases to the judges desired by the District Attorney’s Office. The new system made it appear judges were assigned independently, although Beronio, as a commissioner, was still subject to judicial supervision, including that of Mock. Nevertheless, Mock successfully evaded disqualification, and later sentenced the defendant to death. This is the type of devious and willful maneuvering that goes on in the Yolo County Superior Court.
I have read comments on this issue by members of the public who do not understand the critical importance of public witnesses being able to attend a hearing.
If legal action needs to be taken immediately before a transcript can be prepared, witnesses can help establish what was said and occurred; frequently an attorney is focusing on the argument or his own presentation and can easily miss something. Transcripts are unreliable in the best of circumstances; reporters cannot always keep up with what is said, people talk over each other, and people have different accents which can be difficult to understand.
Witnesses are the only evidence of things happening that will never appear on a transcript; the transcript does not cover things like defendants being directed to stand far away and separate from, or on the other side of the court bar from, defense attorneys during hearings to interfere with their ability to consult with them, a bailiff being gestured to creep up right behind a defendant to intimidate that person, the defendant being surrounded by a cloud of law enforcement personnel for intimidation purposes, or attorneys being forced to consult with defendants while they are chained together in violation of attorney-client privilege. Transcripts are not a witness to racism, because they do not identify the race of the person to whom the judge is speaking.
I have seen all of these things at the Yolo County Superior Court. Some may think these things are not important, but that’s because you presume those arrested are guilty; Yolo County habitually and intentionally arrests the factually innocent for profit and intimidates, harasses and coerces innocent people into taking pleas. It would take a concealed videotape system throughout the building to temper the corrupt conduct that goes on within the Yolo County Superior Court.
However, even more importantly, witnesses are the only check on the court falsifying transcripts and the only alternative for people who cannot afford transcripts, which are very expensive. Witnesses are also the only alternative for defendants representing themselves, because although they are entitled to have free transcripts, the Yolo County Superior Court does not observe that right, preferring to pressure the person who chooses to represent himself by withholding the resources he needs. [The Court Reporters Board has a fund but it is very restrictive in its policies as to whom it will assist, and will not assist anyone who has been unrepresented at any stage of a proceeding.] I personally witnessed the abuse of the transcript system, including the production and sale of false transcripts, the refusal to produce transcripts, the ignoring and failing to respond to the request for production of transcripts, the delay in the production of transcripts needed for time-sensitive matters, especially until the use to which the transcript was to be put was identified, and then the transcript was produced, having been altered to excise the critical passages.
I have seen transcripts that were falsified from the Yolo County Superior Court more times than I can count. As an example, Judge Doris Shockley threatened to sue a defendant after the latter filed a statement of disqualification against her which had been served on her that day. The transcript was delayed until after a second statement of disqualification citing the threat had to be filed and served without an incorporated transcript. The word “sue” was changed to “see” in the transcript that was only then produced. Judge Shockley, in her response under penalty of perjury to the statement of disqualification, did not deny having threatened to sue the defendant, but instead deferred to the transcript, while suggesting she could have been misunderstood.
The Yolo County Superior Court jealously guards the power to falsify transcripts by refusing to permit audio or video recording within the courthouse. In the case I observed, the defendant, after having received fraudulent transcripts on several occasions, requested permission to record; the court denied that permission, stating that was the purpose of the court reporter. When the defendant replied the court reporter was not accurate, the judge did not even contradict the statement. It is inconceivable that the court reporter would have been altering the transcripts without involvement by the judges, with whom they work closely, and acquiescence by others who stood to gain. In one instance where the defendant sought a transcript which the reporter failed and refused to deliver, the defendant filed a complaint with the Court Reporters Board, only to be attacked by the judge for intimidating “my” court reporter.
The Court Reporters Board is useless because it refuses to investigate intentionally falsified transcripts without a detailed transcript of alleged errors, which amounts to a demand to know if you have taped in violation of court rules. The press heat in this case is the reason for the rapid production of a transcript whose accuracy has not been challenged.
If you research the case law, you will find that bad transcripts in criminal cases have frequently been an issue—and a weapon–in the judicial system; the infamous case of Caryl Chessman, executed under Governor Pat Brown, comes to mind. In San Francisco, they have addressed this admirably and efficiently with a real time computerized transcript system that is improving the quality of justice for all.
I eventually came to the conclusion that the primary benefit for Yolo County of not having a videotape and audiotape system and prohibiting taping by anyone else was to facilitate corruption and injustice for the financial benefit of Yolo County. Financial benefit includes frivolous cases in which prosecutions have been pursued to avoid Yolo County liability. Additionally, People do not realize that Yolo County makes money from those unable to adequately defend themselves against frivolous criminal charges or unable to withstand intimidation and coercion. Every plea deal means money for the county, often from its poorest and most unfortunate residents, because of substantial money demands that are often made part of the deal, sometimes without prior notice to the defendant. For most cases that drag on for a long time, there is a state or federal grant the amount of which depends on how many cases, how long they drag on, and how many convictions. I understand at least half of the Yolo County District Attorney’s budget comes from these entrepreneurial prosecutions. The Yolo County Public Defender also makes money for the county. Yolo County charges defendants $175/hour—which is usually more than what the service actually costs– for the services of the public defender or a conflict attorney; Yolo County, including the judges and public defenders, conceals this information from the defendants to obtain their consent for representation by fraud and then if they are convicted, they are stuck with the bill, payment of which is extorted through the abuse of process of the criminal justice system. The Miranda warning is “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” In California, that needs to be changed to add “on credit” at the end. Defendants don’t know about Penal Code 987.8, which authorizes a post trial wallet biopsy, with a full bill sent to anyone who doesn’t appear for it. Since the defendants don’t know they are running up a huge bill, they don’t protest while the Yolo County Public Defender goes to court over and over for continuances. Yolo County farms its residents for profit.
I have read comments from members of the public who do not understand the importance of an arraignment. A defendant has very specific rights at an arraignment and witnesses are necessary because in Yolo County, those rights are ignored and violated routinely.
On the very first court date of the case I attended, I also thought I would be attending a routine arraignment where nothing of significance would occur. I was shocked at what I saw and heard. I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard the arraignment judge explain to the African-American defendant, whom he didn’t know and had never seen before, that the defendant could not be trusted with a copy of the complaint, that we like to give that to the attorney, and that the defendant might lose the copy and the court doesn’t want to have to make another copy. Never in my life had I witnessed naked racism of this nature. A second African-American person later complained to me at a civil rights meeting he had a similar experience and continued to struggle to see the complaint against him.
The presence of Ann Hurd at the arraignment became very significant later when Judge Mock sat on the case at the same time he was executing a declaration for the California Court of Appeal under penalty of perjury declaring that he and his wife had never been on the same case. Nobody should presume an arraignment is insignificant. I learned a lot that day.
Refusing to give a copy of the complaint to an unrepresented defendant, violates the California Constitution Article 1, sec. 14 “The magistrate shall immediately give the defendant a copy of the complaint”, Penal Code 988: “The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or prosecuting attorney under its direction, and consists in reading the accusatory pleading to the defendant and delivering to the defendant a true copy thereof, and of the endorsements thereon, if any, including the list of witnesses . . .”and Penal Code 859 “The magistrate shall immediately deliver to the defendant a copy of the complaint”.
Try exercising your right to retain the counsel of your choice when you do not know why you have been arrested. Every attorney the defendant called declined to represent the defendant when the defendant could not explain the facts of the case. This is a tactic that is most effective against people who are completely innocent and do not know why they have been arrested. Then tell me the arraignment is an unimportant hearing
Do you think you can just go to the Yolo County Superior Court Clerk’s office and see the complaint against you? Think again. The Yolo County Clerk’s Office claimed the declaration used to obtain the warrant, which included all the facts alleged, was discovery which the defendant could not see, in violation of settled law for almost 50 years. [See People v. Sesslin, 68 Cal.2d 418 (1968), relying on Giordenello v. United States 357 U.S. 480 (1958)] and California Penal Code 813.]
Obviously, the judges created this unlawful but customary court practice of refusing to let
the defendant see the complaint against him. It advantages the prosecution massively while violating the defendant’s constitutional right to retain counsel of his choice, along with his constitutional right to due process of law. It makes money for the county by forcing the public defender on someone who can’t hire a lawyer because he doesn’t know any facts about the accusations against him. It also aids the public defender who can more easily manipulate the defendant into a plea if he also keeps the defendant in the dark, as did the public defender first appointed in the case I observed.
The judges and court staff were involved in a number of unlawful customary practices together. An example of one which I was told about by a county employee is clerical issuance of arrest warrants, i.e. the clerks do it instead of the judges, who are supposed to be reviewing the warrant applications and personally making determinations of probable cause. That helps the Yolo District Attorney to arrest innocent people for profit. Judges were not issuing or permitting clerks to issue fee waivers for copies in violation of California Rules of Court, because as the clerk said “That’s how we make our money.” Judges and court staff collaborated to prevent litigants from serving statements of disqualification on judges by denying them access to the court clerk or judge for direct service as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure sec. 170.3(c)(1).
I have also read Rexroad’s jump-to- a-conclusion comment on his blog, and many other similar comments which attempt to characterize what occurred the other day as an isolated instance. Rexroad, as a Yolo County official, I am not surprised to see you shilling for Yolo County. Neither your nor other similar comments are based on any serious factual investigation. Most such comments probably represent wishful thinking. Closing courtrooms and denying defendants a public trial is both routine and customary as a tactic to influence the outcome of cases in the Yolo County Superior Court in violation of a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
The defendant’s right to a public trial includes the right to be present in a judge’s chambers when court is being conducted there, as discussed in the Valenzuela case above. However, the Yolo County Superior Court has a customary practice of holding chambers conferences before any hearing and excluding defendants and the public from attending those conferences. Most issues are decided secretly at the chambers conferences for the most part, with the hearings on the record actually being pro forma announcements of the decisions already made by the court. In other counties, chambers conferences are always attended by a court reporter, but not in Yolo County. Maybe some judges or commissioners in Yolo County use a court reporter in chambers, but in the case I observed, when transcripts were requested, the reply was always that there was no court reporter present and no record of the conference. Everyone disappeared, came out, and a decision was announced to the defendant from the bench.
Even when the defendant represented herself, that defendant was left outside while the judge met with the deputy district attorney in chambers in violation of judicial ethics prohibitions against ex parte communication. We later confirmed with a bailiff that he was trained to bar defendants from entering the chambers. I have no doubt that if this practice had been previously exposed, the court would be claiming a mistake, just as it is doing now. There is no doubt that this practice was used to harm the defendant in the case I observed; I am told that in chambers in the presence of the defendant’s attorney, Judge Fall admitted the statute of limitations had passed, which meant charges he planned to dismiss could not be re-filed-–but outside in the courtroom on the record, he dismissed the charges without prejudice, as a last slap at the innocent defendant, to create a false appearance she could be re-arrested.
Imagine that you are a defendant and your public defender has been bribed to have you convicted. He goes into chambers without you and lies about you, telling the judge you are guilty or crazy; you don’t even know you are being sold down the river by your own attorney, so you can’t protect yourself. Now imagine you also don’t find out the judge is in on it because you are sitting outside in the cold. Something like that happened in the case I observed. That is why there is a constitutional requirement for public hearings.
Now imagine you want to complain about it to a higher court. In the Valenzuela case footnote, the court says you have to have placed on the record evidence you were excluded—but the Yolo County Superior Court holds the secret conferences without going on the record, doesn’t allow you to speak, makes you stand behind the old-fashioned court bar away from the microphone, uses aggressive law enforcement officers to intimidate you into silence and if you do say something, the court reporter doesn’t include it in the transcript. Now what can you do? When your corrupt attorney refuses to try to get you into chambers, should you ask that he be replaced? Well, how are you going to do that when the Yolo County Clerk’s Office won’t file a Marsden motion for substitution for you in violation of case law that requires it to do so—because the presiding judge told them not to do it? That is how the Yolo County Superior Court has abused judicial administration to influence the outcome of cases.
In 2006, I witnessed a defendant who had been directed to appear before Judge Doris Shockley in her courtroom, and whose name appeared on the calendar, locked out of that courtroom in a conspiracy to falsely arrest that defendant for failure to appear in order to pressure that defendant, who was factually innocent and had demanded a defense, to falsely take a plea. While the defendant waited outside, the public defender assigned to the defendant came by, saw the defendant, and went down the stairs. A Yolo County District Attorney’s investigator had both of us under surveillance. Only when I became very suspicious and advised the defendant to bang on the door a second time, did we learn the case had been moved; while the case was moved, the same public defender who had seen the defendant was calling the defendant’s home, pretending he was trying to locate the defendant. When the DA investigator heard me tell the defendant I suspected a setup for a false arrest, he ran to the elevator like a rabbit. Only by the skin of the defendant’s teeth did the defendant escape false arrest, because the retired judge to which the case had been reassigned even refused to allow her to address him. Later, the defendant’s question to him, “May I speak?” and his response, refusing to allow her to speak, was excised from the transcript for which the defendant paid cash. I, along with other witnesses, were present, and I have no doubt, that had we not been present, the defendant would have been falsely re-arrested and jailed to give the prosecution an advantage in attempting to convict a wholly innocent person, who was in fact a crime victim.
At a subsequent critical motion hearing nearing the end of the case, the Yolo County Superior Court replaced their usual courtroom staff with substitutes. After I entered the courtroom accompanied by African-Americans, I was accosted and falsely accused of chewing gum, and ordered out of the courtroom. I had to threaten court administration with a civil rights lawsuit before I was allowed to enter the courtroom in time to hear Judge Mock unethically advocating for the prosecution in a case in which deputy DA Jay Linden declined to make any argument. At the next hearing, I observed the bailiff and another security officer chewing gum. I checked the court rules, and found out there was no rule against chewing gum.
When the Yolo County Superior Court was finally forced to dismiss the case, which I believe was due in substantial part to pressure from outside the court, the case was moved to a smaller courtroom before Judge Timothy Fall. Family and friends had gathered in anticipation of what they hoped would be a dismissal, but immediately the bailiff claimed there was no room and asked everyone to leave other than the defendant and her attorney. I stayed but the defendant’s family and other friends left. They were told they would be called in when the case was called. Once outside the courtroom, the bailiff came out and ordered them to go far down the hall. So they had to go sit by the elevators down the hall. During the chambers conference, I am told DA Jay Linden falsely stated to Judge Fall that the defendant’s friends and family would be disruptive, and Judge Fall said he wasn’t about to permit them to disrupt his courtroom. In years of litigation, the defendant’s friends and family had never disrupted the courtroom, but the hearing was held without them being present. Had there been a disruption, the court would have been entitled to ask them to leave, but as it was done, a public hearing was denied. The real reason was sour grapes and sore losers.
I want to add that in the initial years of the case I have mentioned, we had serious difficulties securing entrance to the courthouse through the downstairs entrance, and I was even threatened with arrest in objecting to the harassment. We expended serious time and resources in opposing the obstruction of our entry into the courthouse.
Davis is more cosmopolitan than the rest of Yolo County. I, like many Davis residents, am a displaced urbanite. We do not truly get that Yolo County remains a backwards, rural county in the worst sense of that description. The very rural courts resemble the worst stereotype of what we understand a backwards rural place to be. The Yolo County Superior Court is a pre-Civil Rights era Deep South court. The defendant felt she was in the 1940s Deep South. I agreed we were in the Deep South but I would have gone back way farther in time than the 1940s. Worse, we have no Atticus Finch [the lawyer in To Kill a Mockingbird] in Yolo County. However, what has struck me is that the Yolo County Superior Court is actually operating under the laws of that era, while ignoring modern law; I have seen the Yolo County Superior Court use the pre-1968 Sesslin definition of a complaint, giving the defendant only a copy of the charges stated in the statutory language without any factual allegations, and I have seen the Yolo County Superior Court sanction legal representation of the pro forma fake quality disapproved by the United States Supreme Court in 1932 in Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0287_0045_ZS.html. I have literally stepped into the past and experienced the frustrations which previous generations fought to overcome in our judicial system, and supposedly had, but their victories are all lost in Yolo County. Unfortunately, all of the institutions whose responsibility it is to supervise this court are in civilized urban locations like San Francisco and Sacramento, and the people there don’t seem to get it either. They don’t seem to understand with what they are dealing, its seriousness, or the urgency of taking extreme measures to cut it out and down. They don’t take seriously the damage this little rural court is inflicting on people here, for lack of anything better to do.
The case discussed here is only exemplary. We discovered others. How many more there are remains to be revealed.
Nothing will clean Yolo County but perhaps the United States Department of Justice. All Yolo County residents—and all concerned members of the public– should join in supporting a full, in-depth public corruption investigation of the Yolo County Superior Court and related Yolo County offices by the United States Department of Justice. With everything that is wrong in this county, injustice can happen to any of us at any time. This type of behavior has to be stopped now. It can’t go on any further. Please call the United States Department of Justice, ask for the public corruption division, which is also at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/pubcorrupt/pubcorrupt.htm and ask them to clean up public corruption in Yolo County. The corruption hotline number is 800-376-5991. Thank you!
There are extremely serious problems in the administration of the Yolo County Superior Court. These articles don’t begin to scratch the surface of it.
The public appears to be not yet aware of the fact that the California Judicial Performance Commission paid an investigative visit to the Yolo County Superior Court last month because of the sheer volume of complaints it has received regarding the conduct of Yolo County judges. The fact that the Yolo County Superior Court would lock out the public in such a high profile case when it knows that it is under the critical scrutiny of the California Judicial Performance Commission speaks volumes to the colossal, sick level of arrogance which has poisoned the administration of justice here. That arrogance includes alterations to the court’s website to remove any identification or contact information for court administration, and to stop posting the court’s full daily calendar for public information.
The California Judicial Council needs to create a complaint system so that when people observe or experience judicial administrative problems they can be reported, independently investigated, and addressed, and so that judicial administration is at least quasi-independently monitored. The Administrative Office of the Courts does not accept public complaints regarding specific instances of judicial maladminstration. I tried. The answer is always the same. Go back to the judges who are the problem and who have the power to retaliate against you.
Instead, the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The Judicial Council makes court rules and policies which it does not enforce. In the Sacramento Bee, the Judicial Council’s Vickery promises more of the same. No new rules or laws are needed because the current law on public trials is very clear already. Enforcement is needed. Instead, the Judicial Council has a number for court staff to call if they want to report something (not likely for them to report themselves), but no number for the public to call to make reports; when I discovered its existence and called it, nobody ever called me back. Now the Judicial Council just refers potential complainants back to the judges that are the problem.
The judges also make up their local administrative court rules on their own, and if those court rules are unlawful, there is no administrative procedure for the swift and efficient correction of illegal procedures. I have observed the Yolo County Superior Court to have illegal rules and differential enforcement of the rules. A good example is Local Rule 16.2, which requires a defendant to enter a plea without first having an opportunity to consult with counsel in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights and which states that entry of a plea is not waiver of a right to demur in direct contradiction to Penal Code sec. 1004: “The defendant may demur to the accusatory pleading at any time prior to the entry of a plea” and Penal Code sec. 1012 “When any of the objections mentioned in Section 1004 appears on the face of the accusatory pleading, it can be taken only by demurrer, and failure so to take it shall be deemed a waiver thereof . . .” Of course, the rule it replaced was much worse, instructing a defense attorney to enter a not guilty plea unless the defendant protested. Don’t think they replaced it without being pressured. This rule also violates Penal Code 990: “ If on the arraignment, the defendant requires it, the defendant must be allowed a reasonable time to answer, which shall be not less than one day in a felony case and not more than seven days in a misdemeanor or infraction case.”
The judges also have their customary practices, and I did observe illegal practices at the Yolo County Superior Court, including at the Yolo County Superior Court Clerk’s Office under the control and direction of the judges. The latter included but were not limited to interference with and denial of examination of the court files, the failure and refusal to issue fee waivers granted by operation of law in violation of the California Rules of Court, the unlawful refusal to file Marsden motions for substitution of counsel by defendants, and the unlawful refusal to file papers for a defendant unless counsel personally traveled to the court from another county to file them.
All challenges to the rules or the manner in which they are enforced or not enforced, and likewise to any unlawful customary practices, have to be done in the courts at great expense by people with judicial standing. Enforcement of the California Rules of Court and local Yolo County rules is up to the judges. This leaves the judges free to manipulate the court administration and staff to advantage the county in any judicial proceeding in which they wish.
The staff are trained to obey the judges, not the court rules, even when the court rules specifically direct clerks as to what they are to do. When judges direct the clerks to violate the rules, the clerks violate the rules.
The Judicial Performance Commission disciplines the judges for violations of judicial ethics, but has no ethical rules which specifically address administrative misconduct.
All of the articles show authorities responding to the reporters’ complaints but the fact is when you or I complain, there is a haughty silence, because the powers that be do not regard the public as of sufficient importance for them to be answerable to them, since the public is powerless by comparison to the newspapers. Vickery of the Judicial Council speaks with the Sacramento Bee, but he will not speak to any of you.
If anyone believes the public apologies and admissions, I ask you, why hasn’t the Yolo County Superior Court used its inherent authority to vacate the arraignment and order a change of venue or at least calendar a new arraignment? That is the measure of sincerity.
If anyone believes the closure of the courtroom was just a mistake, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell to you. The fact that it was no mistake is proven by Prieto’s refusal to identify or discipline the allegedly responsible bailiff.
If anyone believes the decision was an emotional one, you might like to buy the Golden Gate Bridge, too. Certainly at least some of those deputies were on duty and therefore at work and getting paid for their actions.
None of these articles have examined even the issue of public hearings from the point of view of the defendant. Unless you have experienced it, it’s difficult to grasp just how intimidating it is to be surrounded by aggressive men whose stock in trade is violence. At critical points during the very heated case I observed, the courtroom was flooded with law enforcement, the atmosphere was very tense, and the message of aggression was impossible to ignore. No matter how strong you are, or for defendants, how innocent, it is an extremely uncomfortable experience. In fact, at one such hearing one supporter became so fearful she refused to ever return to court again. The defendant in question at times had law enforcement specifically instructed to physically intimidate her, including surrounding the defendant in chambers during a Marsden motion to remove the public defender; the defendant said she felt she could not speak freely, because any statement she made could have been misinterpreted as an excuse to take her into custody. Therefore, I believe the deputies were there to make a show of force to intimidate the defendant, his defense attorney, his family, and any witnesses who might step forward to testify on his behalf. The deputies were there to make a public display intended to influence the potential juror pool. They were sending a clear message to the defendant that he would not receive a fair trial. It was a form of obstruction of justice and denial of defendant’s constitutional rights. There have been more mentions of the reporters’ first amendment rights than there have of the defendant’s right under the California Constitution, Article 1, sec. 15 “The defendant in a criminal cause has the right to a speedy public trial . . .” or his right to a fair trial and due process of law.
Court administrator Perry is not an attorney, yet he is giving legal opinions. Perry is the judges’ stooge. He can give false legal opinions with impunity. Nobody is going to prosecute him for practicing law without a license on behalf of the Yolo County Superior Court. The sheriffs and security guards employed at the Yolo County Superior Court are there under the direction and control of the judges. There are a lot of judges, and it’s likely that those directly responsible for what occurred are a subgroup of those judges, whom it may be challenging to identify.
So much for liars. Here is the truth about the legal definion of a public trial.
The constitutional right to a public trial includes public pretrial proceedings as well. Here is relevant case law:
See http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/259/826.html&search=chambers+public+trial
People v. Valenzuela , 259 Cal.App.2d 826
[Crim. No. 13312. Second Dist., Div. Three. Mar. 7, 1968.]
“. . . . In the present case the waiver of jury trial was made in court, and it was in open court if the public was not excluded.
We do not believe that “in open court” means any more or less than “public trial,” which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
A court session which is “public” is also “open” and it is appropriate to look to the definitions of “public trial.”
“Under normal conditions a public trial is one which is open to the general public at all times.” (People v. Byrnes, 84 Cal.App.2d 72 , 73 [190 P.2d 290].)
[1c] “The trial should be public in the ordinary common-sense acceptation of the term. The doors of the courtroom are expected to be kept open, the public are entitled to be admitted, and the trial is to be public in all respects, as we have before suggested, with due regard to the size of the courtroom, the conveniences of the court, the right to exclude objectionable [259 Cal.App.2d 832] characters and youth of tender years, and to do other things which may facilitate the proper conduct of the trial.” (People v. Hartman, 103 Cal. 242, 245 [37 P. 153, 42 Am. St. Rep. 108].) . . . .
In People v. Cash, 52 Cal.2d 841 [345 P.2d 462], the trial was moved from the courtroom to the judge’s chambers for the purpose of playing a tape recording and this fact was urged as a basis for the claim that the defendant was deprived of a public trial. The court stated (p. 846): “The full court (judge, clerk, bailiff, reporter, defendant and both counsel) took part in these sessions in chambers and no objection was raised prior to appeal. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the sessions in chambers were not public. It is not claimed that the door between the courtroom and the chambers was closed, and there is no indication that any member of the press or public who desired access would have been barred from entering the chambers.”
So there you have it. For the trial to be public, the door had to have been open and unlocked.
You have to understand that the judges are in charge, and the judicial canons of ethics which restrict their communications protect them from answering questions about their activities by giving them a plausible excuse for their silence. See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf
The negative attention directed at Commissioner Beronio is unfair. In my observation in one particular case, Commissioner Beronio was very conscientious in her work. As a commissioner, Beronio is just a subordinate judicial officer subject to the supervision of the judges. Indeed, Beronio did in fact order the bailiff to open the court door according to the Sacramento Bee editorial, but he refused to comply with her order. It’s likely that is because he was complying with a judge’s instructions. Comments were posted on the Sacramento Bee website questioning why she failed to hold the bailiff in contempt. I can see one of two possibilities; either she recognized the bailiff’s refusal as subtle communication that the judges wanted it otherwise and had so instructed him, or she herself was intimidated by the mob of law enforcement. After all, does she have a loyal private army able to physically take on forty sheriffs? Who would have taken the bailiff into custody for her, if not the sheriffs? If she did so when the judges wanted it otherwise, would she still have a job?
In the past, arraignments, which include the assignment of a case to a judge, were held by judges. It has escaped public attention that Judge Stephen Mock, who was Presiding Judge at the time, created a new system for arraignments and assignments which involved hiring Commissioner Beronio, who became the only person with the authority to assign judges in the Yolo County Superior Court. Mock apparently did this to evade the grounds for his disqualification in the statement of disqualification filed in the CHP killing case, which included an objection to him assigning judges while his wife, Ann Hurd, Yolo County Chief Deputy Prosecutor, assigned attorneys to the same cases. Mock could advantage his wife by assigning criminal cases to the judges desired by the District Attorney’s Office. The new system made it appear judges were assigned independently, although Beronio, as a commissioner, was still subject to judicial supervision, including that of Mock. Nevertheless, Mock successfully evaded disqualification, and later sentenced the defendant to death. This is the type of devious and willful maneuvering that goes on in the Yolo County Superior Court.
I have read comments on this issue by members of the public who do not understand the critical importance of public witnesses being able to attend a hearing.
If legal action needs to be taken immediately before a transcript can be prepared, witnesses can help establish what was said and occurred; frequently an attorney is focusing on the argument or his own presentation and can easily miss something. Transcripts are unreliable in the best of circumstances; reporters cannot always keep up with what is said, people talk over each other, and people have different accents which can be difficult to understand.
Witnesses are the only evidence of things happening that will never appear on a transcript; the transcript does not cover things like defendants being directed to stand far away and separate from, or on the other side of the court bar from, defense attorneys during hearings to interfere with their ability to consult with them, a bailiff being gestured to creep up right behind a defendant to intimidate that person, the defendant being surrounded by a cloud of law enforcement personnel for intimidation purposes, or attorneys being forced to consult with defendants while they are chained together in violation of attorney-client privilege. Transcripts are not a witness to racism, because they do not identify the race of the person to whom the judge is speaking.
I have seen all of these things at the Yolo County Superior Court. Some may think these things are not important, but that’s because you presume those arrested are guilty; Yolo County habitually and intentionally arrests the factually innocent for profit and intimidates, harasses and coerces innocent people into taking pleas. It would take a concealed videotape system throughout the building to temper the corrupt conduct that goes on within the Yolo County Superior Court.
However, even more importantly, witnesses are the only check on the court falsifying transcripts and the only alternative for people who cannot afford transcripts, which are very expensive. Witnesses are also the only alternative for defendants representing themselves, because although they are entitled to have free transcripts, the Yolo County Superior Court does not observe that right, preferring to pressure the person who chooses to represent himself by withholding the resources he needs. [The Court Reporters Board has a fund but it is very restrictive in its policies as to whom it will assist, and will not assist anyone who has been unrepresented at any stage of a proceeding.] I personally witnessed the abuse of the transcript system, including the production and sale of false transcripts, the refusal to produce transcripts, the ignoring and failing to respond to the request for production of transcripts, the delay in the production of transcripts needed for time-sensitive matters, especially until the use to which the transcript was to be put was identified, and then the transcript was produced, having been altered to excise the critical passages.
I have seen transcripts that were falsified from the Yolo County Superior Court more times than I can count. As an example, Judge Doris Shockley threatened to sue a defendant after the latter filed a statement of disqualification against her which had been served on her that day. The transcript was delayed until after a second statement of disqualification citing the threat had to be filed and served without an incorporated transcript. The word “sue” was changed to “see” in the transcript that was only then produced. Judge Shockley, in her response under penalty of perjury to the statement of disqualification, did not deny having threatened to sue the defendant, but instead deferred to the transcript, while suggesting she could have been misunderstood.
The Yolo County Superior Court jealously guards the power to falsify transcripts by refusing to permit audio or video recording within the courthouse. In the case I observed, the defendant, after having received fraudulent transcripts on several occasions, requested permission to record; the court denied that permission, stating that was the purpose of the court reporter. When the defendant replied the court reporter was not accurate, the judge did not even contradict the statement. It is inconceivable that the court reporter would have been altering the transcripts without involvement by the judges, with whom they work closely, and acquiescence by others who stood to gain. In one instance where the defendant sought a transcript which the reporter failed and refused to deliver, the defendant filed a complaint with the Court Reporters Board, only to be attacked by the judge for intimidating “my” court reporter.
The Court Reporters Board is useless because it refuses to investigate intentionally falsified transcripts without a detailed transcript of alleged errors, which amounts to a demand to know if you have taped in violation of court rules. The press heat in this case is the reason for the rapid production of a transcript whose accuracy has not been challenged.
If you research the case law, you will find that bad transcripts in criminal cases have frequently been an issue—and a weapon–in the judicial system; the infamous case of Caryl Chessman, executed under Governor Pat Brown, comes to mind. In San Francisco, they have addressed this admirably and efficiently with a real time computerized transcript system that is improving the quality of justice for all.
I eventually came to the conclusion that the primary benefit for Yolo County of not having a videotape and audiotape system and prohibiting taping by anyone else was to facilitate corruption and injustice for the financial benefit of Yolo County. Financial benefit includes frivolous cases in which prosecutions have been pursued to avoid Yolo County liability. Additionally, People do not realize that Yolo County makes money from those unable to adequately defend themselves against frivolous criminal charges or unable to withstand intimidation and coercion. Every plea deal means money for the county, often from its poorest and most unfortunate residents, because of substantial money demands that are often made part of the deal, sometimes without prior notice to the defendant. For most cases that drag on for a long time, there is a state or federal grant the amount of which depends on how many cases, how long they drag on, and how many convictions. I understand at least half of the Yolo County District Attorney’s budget comes from these entrepreneurial prosecutions. The Yolo County Public Defender also makes money for the county. Yolo County charges defendants $175/hour—which is usually more than what the service actually costs– for the services of the public defender or a conflict attorney; Yolo County, including the judges and public defenders, conceals this information from the defendants to obtain their consent for representation by fraud and then if they are convicted, they are stuck with the bill, payment of which is extorted through the abuse of process of the criminal justice system. The Miranda warning is “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” In California, that needs to be changed to add “on credit” at the end. Defendants don’t know about Penal Code 987.8, which authorizes a post trial wallet biopsy, with a full bill sent to anyone who doesn’t appear for it. Since the defendants don’t know they are running up a huge bill, they don’t protest while the Yolo County Public Defender goes to court over and over for continuances. Yolo County farms its residents for profit.
I have read comments from members of the public who do not understand the importance of an arraignment. A defendant has very specific rights at an arraignment and witnesses are necessary because in Yolo County, those rights are ignored and violated routinely.
On the very first court date of the case I attended, I also thought I would be attending a routine arraignment where nothing of significance would occur. I was shocked at what I saw and heard. I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard the arraignment judge explain to the African-American defendant, whom he didn’t know and had never seen before, that the defendant could not be trusted with a copy of the complaint, that we like to give that to the attorney, and that the defendant might lose the copy and the court doesn’t want to have to make another copy. Never in my life had I witnessed naked racism of this nature. A second African-American person later complained to me at a civil rights meeting he had a similar experience and continued to struggle to see the complaint against him.
The presence of Ann Hurd at the arraignment became very significant later when Judge Mock sat on the case at the same time he was executing a declaration for the California Court of Appeal under penalty of perjury declaring that he and his wife had never been on the same case. Nobody should presume an arraignment is insignificant. I learned a lot that day.
Refusing to give a copy of the complaint to an unrepresented defendant, violates the California Constitution Article 1, sec. 14 “The magistrate shall immediately give the defendant a copy of the complaint”, Penal Code 988: “The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or prosecuting attorney under its direction, and consists in reading the accusatory pleading to the defendant and delivering to the defendant a true copy thereof, and of the endorsements thereon, if any, including the list of witnesses . . .”and Penal Code 859 “The magistrate shall immediately deliver to the defendant a copy of the complaint”.
Try exercising your right to retain the counsel of your choice when you do not know why you have been arrested. Every attorney the defendant called declined to represent the defendant when the defendant could not explain the facts of the case. This is a tactic that is most effective against people who are completely innocent and do not know why they have been arrested. Then tell me the arraignment is an unimportant hearing
Do you think you can just go to the Yolo County Superior Court Clerk’s office and see the complaint against you? Think again. The Yolo County Clerk’s Office claimed the declaration used to obtain the warrant, which included all the facts alleged, was discovery which the defendant could not see, in violation of settled law for almost 50 years. [See People v. Sesslin, 68 Cal.2d 418 (1968), relying on Giordenello v. United States 357 U.S. 480 (1958)] and California Penal Code 813.]
Obviously, the judges created this unlawful but customary court practice of refusing to let
the defendant see the complaint against him. It advantages the prosecution massively while violating the defendant’s constitutional right to retain counsel of his choice, along with his constitutional right to due process of law. It makes money for the county by forcing the public defender on someone who can’t hire a lawyer because he doesn’t know any facts about the accusations against him. It also aids the public defender who can more easily manipulate the defendant into a plea if he also keeps the defendant in the dark, as did the public defender first appointed in the case I observed.
The judges and court staff were involved in a number of unlawful customary practices together. An example of one which I was told about by a county employee is clerical issuance of arrest warrants, i.e. the clerks do it instead of the judges, who are supposed to be reviewing the warrant applications and personally making determinations of probable cause. That helps the Yolo District Attorney to arrest innocent people for profit. Judges were not issuing or permitting clerks to issue fee waivers for copies in violation of California Rules of Court, because as the clerk said “That’s how we make our money.” Judges and court staff collaborated to prevent litigants from serving statements of disqualification on judges by denying them access to the court clerk or judge for direct service as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure sec. 170.3(c)(1).
I have also read Rexroad’s jump-to- a-conclusion comment on his blog, and many other similar comments which attempt to characterize what occurred the other day as an isolated instance. Rexroad, as a Yolo County official, I am not surprised to see you shilling for Yolo County. Neither your nor other similar comments are based on any serious factual investigation. Most such comments probably represent wishful thinking. Closing courtrooms and denying defendants a public trial is both routine and customary as a tactic to influence the outcome of cases in the Yolo County Superior Court in violation of a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
The defendant’s right to a public trial includes the right to be present in a judge’s chambers when court is being conducted there, as discussed in the Valenzuela case above. However, the Yolo County Superior Court has a customary practice of holding chambers conferences before any hearing and excluding defendants and the public from attending those conferences. Most issues are decided secretly at the chambers conferences for the most part, with the hearings on the record actually being pro forma announcements of the decisions already made by the court. In other counties, chambers conferences are always attended by a court reporter, but not in Yolo County. Maybe some judges or commissioners in Yolo County use a court reporter in chambers, but in the case I observed, when transcripts were requested, the reply was always that there was no court reporter present and no record of the conference. Everyone disappeared, came out, and a decision was announced to the defendant from the bench.
Even when the defendant represented herself, that defendant was left outside while the judge met with the deputy district attorney in chambers in violation of judicial ethics prohibitions against ex parte communication. We later confirmed with a bailiff that he was trained to bar defendants from entering the chambers. I have no doubt that if this practice had been previously exposed, the court would be claiming a mistake, just as it is doing now. There is no doubt that this practice was used to harm the defendant in the case I observed; I am told that in chambers in the presence of the defendant’s attorney, Judge Fall admitted the statute of limitations had passed, which meant charges he planned to dismiss could not be re-filed-–but outside in the courtroom on the record, he dismissed the charges without prejudice, as a last slap at the innocent defendant, to create a false appearance she could be re-arrested.
Imagine that you are a defendant and your public defender has been bribed to have you convicted. He goes into chambers without you and lies about you, telling the judge you are guilty or crazy; you don’t even know you are being sold down the river by your own attorney, so you can’t protect yourself. Now imagine you also don’t find out the judge is in on it because you are sitting outside in the cold. Something like that happened in the case I observed. That is why there is a constitutional requirement for public hearings.
Now imagine you want to complain about it to a higher court. In the Valenzuela case footnote, the court says you have to have placed on the record evidence you were excluded—but the Yolo County Superior Court holds the secret conferences without going on the record, doesn’t allow you to speak, makes you stand behind the old-fashioned court bar away from the microphone, uses aggressive law enforcement officers to intimidate you into silence and if you do say something, the court reporter doesn’t include it in the transcript. Now what can you do? When your corrupt attorney refuses to try to get you into chambers, should you ask that he be replaced? Well, how are you going to do that when the Yolo County Clerk’s Office won’t file a Marsden motion for substitution for you in violation of case law that requires it to do so—because the presiding judge told them not to do it? That is how the Yolo County Superior Court has abused judicial administration to influence the outcome of cases.
In 2006, I witnessed a defendant who had been directed to appear before Judge Doris Shockley in her courtroom, and whose name appeared on the calendar, locked out of that courtroom in a conspiracy to falsely arrest that defendant for failure to appear in order to pressure that defendant, who was factually innocent and had demanded a defense, to falsely take a plea. While the defendant waited outside, the public defender assigned to the defendant came by, saw the defendant, and went down the stairs. A Yolo County District Attorney’s investigator had both of us under surveillance. Only when I became very suspicious and advised the defendant to bang on the door a second time, did we learn the case had been moved; while the case was moved, the same public defender who had seen the defendant was calling the defendant’s home, pretending he was trying to locate the defendant. When the DA investigator heard me tell the defendant I suspected a setup for a false arrest, he ran to the elevator like a rabbit. Only by the skin of the defendant’s teeth did the defendant escape false arrest, because the retired judge to which the case had been reassigned even refused to allow her to address him. Later, the defendant’s question to him, “May I speak?” and his response, refusing to allow her to speak, was excised from the transcript for which the defendant paid cash. I, along with other witnesses, were present, and I have no doubt, that had we not been present, the defendant would have been falsely re-arrested and jailed to give the prosecution an advantage in attempting to convict a wholly innocent person, who was in fact a crime victim.
At a subsequent critical motion hearing nearing the end of the case, the Yolo County Superior Court replaced their usual courtroom staff with substitutes. After I entered the courtroom accompanied by African-Americans, I was accosted and falsely accused of chewing gum, and ordered out of the courtroom. I had to threaten court administration with a civil rights lawsuit before I was allowed to enter the courtroom in time to hear Judge Mock unethically advocating for the prosecution in a case in which deputy DA Jay Linden declined to make any argument. At the next hearing, I observed the bailiff and another security officer chewing gum. I checked the court rules, and found out there was no rule against chewing gum.
When the Yolo County Superior Court was finally forced to dismiss the case, which I believe was due in substantial part to pressure from outside the court, the case was moved to a smaller courtroom before Judge Timothy Fall. Family and friends had gathered in anticipation of what they hoped would be a dismissal, but immediately the bailiff claimed there was no room and asked everyone to leave other than the defendant and her attorney. I stayed but the defendant’s family and other friends left. They were told they would be called in when the case was called. Once outside the courtroom, the bailiff came out and ordered them to go far down the hall. So they had to go sit by the elevators down the hall. During the chambers conference, I am told DA Jay Linden falsely stated to Judge Fall that the defendant’s friends and family would be disruptive, and Judge Fall said he wasn’t about to permit them to disrupt his courtroom. In years of litigation, the defendant’s friends and family had never disrupted the courtroom, but the hearing was held without them being present. Had there been a disruption, the court would have been entitled to ask them to leave, but as it was done, a public hearing was denied. The real reason was sour grapes and sore losers.
I want to add that in the initial years of the case I have mentioned, we had serious difficulties securing entrance to the courthouse through the downstairs entrance, and I was even threatened with arrest in objecting to the harassment. We expended serious time and resources in opposing the obstruction of our entry into the courthouse.
Davis is more cosmopolitan than the rest of Yolo County. I, like many Davis residents, am a displaced urbanite. We do not truly get that Yolo County remains a backwards, rural county in the worst sense of that description. The very rural courts resemble the worst stereotype of what we understand a backwards rural place to be. The Yolo County Superior Court is a pre-Civil Rights era Deep South court. The defendant felt she was in the 1940s Deep South. I agreed we were in the Deep South but I would have gone back way farther in time than the 1940s. Worse, we have no Atticus Finch [the lawyer in To Kill a Mockingbird] in Yolo County. However, what has struck me is that the Yolo County Superior Court is actually operating under the laws of that era, while ignoring modern law; I have seen the Yolo County Superior Court use the pre-1968 Sesslin definition of a complaint, giving the defendant only a copy of the charges stated in the statutory language without any factual allegations, and I have seen the Yolo County Superior Court sanction legal representation of the pro forma fake quality disapproved by the United States Supreme Court in 1932 in Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0287_0045_ZS.html. I have literally stepped into the past and experienced the frustrations which previous generations fought to overcome in our judicial system, and supposedly had, but their victories are all lost in Yolo County. Unfortunately, all of the institutions whose responsibility it is to supervise this court are in civilized urban locations like San Francisco and Sacramento, and the people there don’t seem to get it either. They don’t seem to understand with what they are dealing, its seriousness, or the urgency of taking extreme measures to cut it out and down. They don’t take seriously the damage this little rural court is inflicting on people here, for lack of anything better to do.
The case discussed here is only exemplary. We discovered others. How many more there are remains to be revealed.
Nothing will clean Yolo County but perhaps the United States Department of Justice. All Yolo County residents—and all concerned members of the public– should join in supporting a full, in-depth public corruption investigation of the Yolo County Superior Court and related Yolo County offices by the United States Department of Justice. With everything that is wrong in this county, injustice can happen to any of us at any time. This type of behavior has to be stopped now. It can’t go on any further. Please call the United States Department of Justice, ask for the public corruption division, which is also at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/pubcorrupt/pubcorrupt.htm and ask them to clean up public corruption in Yolo County. The corruption hotline number is 800-376-5991. Thank you!
There are extremely serious problems in the administration of the Yolo County Superior Court. These articles don’t begin to scratch the surface of it.
The public appears to be not yet aware of the fact that the California Judicial Performance Commission paid an investigative visit to the Yolo County Superior Court last month because of the sheer volume of complaints it has received regarding the conduct of Yolo County judges. The fact that the Yolo County Superior Court would lock out the public in such a high profile case when it knows that it is under the critical scrutiny of the California Judicial Performance Commission speaks volumes to the colossal, sick level of arrogance which has poisoned the administration of justice here. That arrogance includes alterations to the court’s website to remove any identification or contact information for court administration, and to stop posting the court’s full daily calendar for public information.
The California Judicial Council needs to create a complaint system so that when people observe or experience judicial administrative problems they can be reported, independently investigated, and addressed, and so that judicial administration is at least quasi-independently monitored. The Administrative Office of the Courts does not accept public complaints regarding specific instances of judicial maladminstration. I tried. The answer is always the same. Go back to the judges who are the problem and who have the power to retaliate against you.
Instead, the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The Judicial Council makes court rules and policies which it does not enforce. In the Sacramento Bee, the Judicial Council’s Vickery promises more of the same. No new rules or laws are needed because the current law on public trials is very clear already. Enforcement is needed. Instead, the Judicial Council has a number for court staff to call if they want to report something (not likely for them to report themselves), but no number for the public to call to make reports; when I discovered its existence and called it, nobody ever called me back. Now the Judicial Council just refers potential complainants back to the judges that are the problem.
The judges also make up their local administrative court rules on their own, and if those court rules are unlawful, there is no administrative procedure for the swift and efficient correction of illegal procedures. I have observed the Yolo County Superior Court to have illegal rules and differential enforcement of the rules. A good example is Local Rule 16.2, which requires a defendant to enter a plea without first having an opportunity to consult with counsel in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights and which states that entry of a plea is not waiver of a right to demur in direct contradiction to Penal Code sec. 1004: “The defendant may demur to the accusatory pleading at any time prior to the entry of a plea” and Penal Code sec. 1012 “When any of the objections mentioned in Section 1004 appears on the face of the accusatory pleading, it can be taken only by demurrer, and failure so to take it shall be deemed a waiver thereof . . .” Of course, the rule it replaced was much worse, instructing a defense attorney to enter a not guilty plea unless the defendant protested. Don’t think they replaced it without being pressured. This rule also violates Penal Code 990: “ If on the arraignment, the defendant requires it, the defendant must be allowed a reasonable time to answer, which shall be not less than one day in a felony case and not more than seven days in a misdemeanor or infraction case.”
The judges also have their customary practices, and I did observe illegal practices at the Yolo County Superior Court, including at the Yolo County Superior Court Clerk’s Office under the control and direction of the judges. The latter included but were not limited to interference with and denial of examination of the court files, the failure and refusal to issue fee waivers granted by operation of law in violation of the California Rules of Court, the unlawful refusal to file Marsden motions for substitution of counsel by defendants, and the unlawful refusal to file papers for a defendant unless counsel personally traveled to the court from another county to file them.
All challenges to the rules or the manner in which they are enforced or not enforced, and likewise to any unlawful customary practices, have to be done in the courts at great expense by people with judicial standing. Enforcement of the California Rules of Court and local Yolo County rules is up to the judges. This leaves the judges free to manipulate the court administration and staff to advantage the county in any judicial proceeding in which they wish.
The staff are trained to obey the judges, not the court rules, even when the court rules specifically direct clerks as to what they are to do. When judges direct the clerks to violate the rules, the clerks violate the rules.
The Judicial Performance Commission disciplines the judges for violations of judicial ethics, but has no ethical rules which specifically address administrative misconduct.
All of the articles show authorities responding to the reporters’ complaints but the fact is when you or I complain, there is a haughty silence, because the powers that be do not regard the public as of sufficient importance for them to be answerable to them, since the public is powerless by comparison to the newspapers. Vickery of the Judicial Council speaks with the Sacramento Bee, but he will not speak to any of you.
If anyone believes the public apologies and admissions, I ask you, why hasn’t the Yolo County Superior Court used its inherent authority to vacate the arraignment and order a change of venue or at least calendar a new arraignment? That is the measure of sincerity.
If anyone believes the closure of the courtroom was just a mistake, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell to you. The fact that it was no mistake is proven by Prieto’s refusal to identify or discipline the allegedly responsible bailiff.
If anyone believes the decision was an emotional one, you might like to buy the Golden Gate Bridge, too. Certainly at least some of those deputies were on duty and therefore at work and getting paid for their actions.
None of these articles have examined even the issue of public hearings from the point of view of the defendant. Unless you have experienced it, it’s difficult to grasp just how intimidating it is to be surrounded by aggressive men whose stock in trade is violence. At critical points during the very heated case I observed, the courtroom was flooded with law enforcement, the atmosphere was very tense, and the message of aggression was impossible to ignore. No matter how strong you are, or for defendants, how innocent, it is an extremely uncomfortable experience. In fact, at one such hearing one supporter became so fearful she refused to ever return to court again. The defendant in question at times had law enforcement specifically instructed to physically intimidate her, including surrounding the defendant in chambers during a Marsden motion to remove the public defender; the defendant said she felt she could not speak freely, because any statement she made could have been misinterpreted as an excuse to take her into custody. Therefore, I believe the deputies were there to make a show of force to intimidate the defendant, his defense attorney, his family, and any witnesses who might step forward to testify on his behalf. The deputies were there to make a public display intended to influence the potential juror pool. They were sending a clear message to the defendant that he would not receive a fair trial. It was a form of obstruction of justice and denial of defendant’s constitutional rights. There have been more mentions of the reporters’ first amendment rights than there have of the defendant’s right under the California Constitution, Article 1, sec. 15 “The defendant in a criminal cause has the right to a speedy public trial . . .” or his right to a fair trial and due process of law.
Court administrator Perry is not an attorney, yet he is giving legal opinions. Perry is the judges’ stooge. He can give false legal opinions with impunity. Nobody is going to prosecute him for practicing law without a license on behalf of the Yolo County Superior Court. The sheriffs and security guards employed at the Yolo County Superior Court are there under the direction and control of the judges. There are a lot of judges, and it’s likely that those directly responsible for what occurred are a subgroup of those judges, whom it may be challenging to identify.
So much for liars. Here is the truth about the legal definion of a public trial.
The constitutional right to a public trial includes public pretrial proceedings as well. Here is relevant case law:
See http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/259/826.html&search=chambers+public+trial
People v. Valenzuela , 259 Cal.App.2d 826
[Crim. No. 13312. Second Dist., Div. Three. Mar. 7, 1968.]
“. . . . In the present case the waiver of jury trial was made in court, and it was in open court if the public was not excluded.
We do not believe that “in open court” means any more or less than “public trial,” which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
A court session which is “public” is also “open” and it is appropriate to look to the definitions of “public trial.”
“Under normal conditions a public trial is one which is open to the general public at all times.” (People v. Byrnes, 84 Cal.App.2d 72 , 73 [190 P.2d 290].)
[1c] “The trial should be public in the ordinary common-sense acceptation of the term. The doors of the courtroom are expected to be kept open, the public are entitled to be admitted, and the trial is to be public in all respects, as we have before suggested, with due regard to the size of the courtroom, the conveniences of the court, the right to exclude objectionable [259 Cal.App.2d 832] characters and youth of tender years, and to do other things which may facilitate the proper conduct of the trial.” (People v. Hartman, 103 Cal. 242, 245 [37 P. 153, 42 Am. St. Rep. 108].) . . . .
In People v. Cash, 52 Cal.2d 841 [345 P.2d 462], the trial was moved from the courtroom to the judge’s chambers for the purpose of playing a tape recording and this fact was urged as a basis for the claim that the defendant was deprived of a public trial. The court stated (p. 846): “The full court (judge, clerk, bailiff, reporter, defendant and both counsel) took part in these sessions in chambers and no objection was raised prior to appeal. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the sessions in chambers were not public. It is not claimed that the door between the courtroom and the chambers was closed, and there is no indication that any member of the press or public who desired access would have been barred from entering the chambers.”
So there you have it. For the trial to be public, the door had to have been open and unlocked.
You have to understand that the judges are in charge, and the judicial canons of ethics which restrict their communications protect them from answering questions about their activities by giving them a plausible excuse for their silence. See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf
The negative attention directed at Commissioner Beronio is unfair. In my observation in one particular case, Commissioner Beronio was very conscientious in her work. As a commissioner, Beronio is just a subordinate judicial officer subject to the supervision of the judges. Indeed, Beronio did in fact order the bailiff to open the court door according to the Sacramento Bee editorial, but he refused to comply with her order. It’s likely that is because he was complying with a judge’s instructions. Comments were posted on the Sacramento Bee website questioning why she failed to hold the bailiff in contempt. I can see one of two possibilities; either she recognized the bailiff’s refusal as subtle communication that the judges wanted it otherwise and had so instructed him, or she herself was intimidated by the mob of law enforcement. After all, does she have a loyal private army able to physically take on forty sheriffs? Who would have taken the bailiff into custody for her, if not the sheriffs? If she did so when the judges wanted it otherwise, would she still have a job?
In the past, arraignments, which include the assignment of a case to a judge, were held by judges. It has escaped public attention that Judge Stephen Mock, who was Presiding Judge at the time, created a new system for arraignments and assignments which involved hiring Commissioner Beronio, who became the only person with the authority to assign judges in the Yolo County Superior Court. Mock apparently did this to evade the grounds for his disqualification in the statement of disqualification filed in the CHP killing case, which included an objection to him assigning judges while his wife, Ann Hurd, Yolo County Chief Deputy Prosecutor, assigned attorneys to the same cases. Mock could advantage his wife by assigning criminal cases to the judges desired by the District Attorney’s Office. The new system made it appear judges were assigned independently, although Beronio, as a commissioner, was still subject to judicial supervision, including that of Mock. Nevertheless, Mock successfully evaded disqualification, and later sentenced the defendant to death. This is the type of devious and willful maneuvering that goes on in the Yolo County Superior Court.
I have read comments on this issue by members of the public who do not understand the critical importance of public witnesses being able to attend a hearing.
If legal action needs to be taken immediately before a transcript can be prepared, witnesses can help establish what was said and occurred; frequently an attorney is focusing on the argument or his own presentation and can easily miss something. Transcripts are unreliable in the best of circumstances; reporters cannot always keep up with what is said, people talk over each other, and people have different accents which can be difficult to understand.
Witnesses are the only evidence of things happening that will never appear on a transcript; the transcript does not cover things like defendants being directed to stand far away and separate from, or on the other side of the court bar from, defense attorneys during hearings to interfere with their ability to consult with them, a bailiff being gestured to creep up right behind a defendant to intimidate that person, the defendant being surrounded by a cloud of law enforcement personnel for intimidation purposes, or attorneys being forced to consult with defendants while they are chained together in violation of attorney-client privilege. Transcripts are not a witness to racism, because they do not identify the race of the person to whom the judge is speaking.
I have seen all of these things at the Yolo County Superior Court. Some may think these things are not important, but that’s because you presume those arrested are guilty; Yolo County habitually and intentionally arrests the factually innocent for profit and intimidates, harasses and coerces innocent people into taking pleas. It would take a concealed videotape system throughout the building to temper the corrupt conduct that goes on within the Yolo County Superior Court.
However, even more importantly, witnesses are the only check on the court falsifying transcripts and the only alternative for people who cannot afford transcripts, which are very expensive. Witnesses are also the only alternative for defendants representing themselves, because although they are entitled to have free transcripts, the Yolo County Superior Court does not observe that right, preferring to pressure the person who chooses to represent himself by withholding the resources he needs. [The Court Reporters Board has a fund but it is very restrictive in its policies as to whom it will assist, and will not assist anyone who has been unrepresented at any stage of a proceeding.] I personally witnessed the abuse of the transcript system, including the production and sale of false transcripts, the refusal to produce transcripts, the ignoring and failing to respond to the request for production of transcripts, the delay in the production of transcripts needed for time-sensitive matters, especially until the use to which the transcript was to be put was identified, and then the transcript was produced, having been altered to excise the critical passages.
I have seen transcripts that were falsified from the Yolo County Superior Court more times than I can count. As an example, Judge Doris Shockley threatened to sue a defendant after the latter filed a statement of disqualification against her which had been served on her that day. The transcript was delayed until after a second statement of disqualification citing the threat had to be filed and served without an incorporated transcript. The word “sue” was changed to “see” in the transcript that was only then produced. Judge Shockley, in her response under penalty of perjury to the statement of disqualification, did not deny having threatened to sue the defendant, but instead deferred to the transcript, while suggesting she could have been misunderstood.
The Yolo County Superior Court jealously guards the power to falsify transcripts by refusing to permit audio or video recording within the courthouse. In the case I observed, the defendant, after having received fraudulent transcripts on several occasions, requested permission to record; the court denied that permission, stating that was the purpose of the court reporter. When the defendant replied the court reporter was not accurate, the judge did not even contradict the statement. It is inconceivable that the court reporter would have been altering the transcripts without involvement by the judges, with whom they work closely, and acquiescence by others who stood to gain. In one instance where the defendant sought a transcript which the reporter failed and refused to deliver, the defendant filed a complaint with the Court Reporters Board, only to be attacked by the judge for intimidating “my” court reporter.
The Court Reporters Board is useless because it refuses to investigate intentionally falsified transcripts without a detailed transcript of alleged errors, which amounts to a demand to know if you have taped in violation of court rules. The press heat in this case is the reason for the rapid production of a transcript whose accuracy has not been challenged.
If you research the case law, you will find that bad transcripts in criminal cases have frequently been an issue—and a weapon–in the judicial system; the infamous case of Caryl Chessman, executed under Governor Pat Brown, comes to mind. In San Francisco, they have addressed this admirably and efficiently with a real time computerized transcript system that is improving the quality of justice for all.
I eventually came to the conclusion that the primary benefit for Yolo County of not having a videotape and audiotape system and prohibiting taping by anyone else was to facilitate corruption and injustice for the financial benefit of Yolo County. Financial benefit includes frivolous cases in which prosecutions have been pursued to avoid Yolo County liability. Additionally, People do not realize that Yolo County makes money from those unable to adequately defend themselves against frivolous criminal charges or unable to withstand intimidation and coercion. Every plea deal means money for the county, often from its poorest and most unfortunate residents, because of substantial money demands that are often made part of the deal, sometimes without prior notice to the defendant. For most cases that drag on for a long time, there is a state or federal grant the amount of which depends on how many cases, how long they drag on, and how many convictions. I understand at least half of the Yolo County District Attorney’s budget comes from these entrepreneurial prosecutions. The Yolo County Public Defender also makes money for the county. Yolo County charges defendants $175/hour—which is usually more than what the service actually costs– for the services of the public defender or a conflict attorney; Yolo County, including the judges and public defenders, conceals this information from the defendants to obtain their consent for representation by fraud and then if they are convicted, they are stuck with the bill, payment of which is extorted through the abuse of process of the criminal justice system. The Miranda warning is “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” In California, that needs to be changed to add “on credit” at the end. Defendants don’t know about Penal Code 987.8, which authorizes a post trial wallet biopsy, with a full bill sent to anyone who doesn’t appear for it. Since the defendants don’t know they are running up a huge bill, they don’t protest while the Yolo County Public Defender goes to court over and over for continuances. Yolo County farms its residents for profit.
I have read comments from members of the public who do not understand the importance of an arraignment. A defendant has very specific rights at an arraignment and witnesses are necessary because in Yolo County, those rights are ignored and violated routinely.
On the very first court date of the case I attended, I also thought I would be attending a routine arraignment where nothing of significance would occur. I was shocked at what I saw and heard. I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard the arraignment judge explain to the African-American defendant, whom he didn’t know and had never seen before, that the defendant could not be trusted with a copy of the complaint, that we like to give that to the attorney, and that the defendant might lose the copy and the court doesn’t want to have to make another copy. Never in my life had I witnessed naked racism of this nature. A second African-American person later complained to me at a civil rights meeting he had a similar experience and continued to struggle to see the complaint against him.
The presence of Ann Hurd at the arraignment became very significant later when Judge Mock sat on the case at the same time he was executing a declaration for the California Court of Appeal under penalty of perjury declaring that he and his wife had never been on the same case. Nobody should presume an arraignment is insignificant. I learned a lot that day.
Refusing to give a copy of the complaint to an unrepresented defendant, violates the California Constitution Article 1, sec. 14 “The magistrate shall immediately give the defendant a copy of the complaint”, Penal Code 988: “The arraignment must be made by the court, or by the clerk or prosecuting attorney under its direction, and consists in reading the accusatory pleading to the defendant and delivering to the defendant a true copy thereof, and of the endorsements thereon, if any, including the list of witnesses . . .”and Penal Code 859 “The magistrate shall immediately deliver to the defendant a copy of the complaint”.
Try exercising your right to retain the counsel of your choice when you do not know why you have been arrested. Every attorney the defendant called declined to represent the defendant when the defendant could not explain the facts of the case. This is a tactic that is most effective against people who are completely innocent and do not know why they have been arrested. Then tell me the arraignment is an unimportant hearing
Do you think you can just go to the Yolo County Superior Court Clerk’s office and see the complaint against you? Think again. The Yolo County Clerk’s Office claimed the declaration used to obtain the warrant, which included all the facts alleged, was discovery which the defendant could not see, in violation of settled law for almost 50 years. [See People v. Sesslin, 68 Cal.2d 418 (1968), relying on Giordenello v. United States 357 U.S. 480 (1958)] and California Penal Code 813.]
Obviously, the judges created this unlawful but customary court practice of refusing to let
the defendant see the complaint against him. It advantages the prosecution massively while violating the defendant’s constitutional right to retain counsel of his choice, along with his constitutional right to due process of law. It makes money for the county by forcing the public defender on someone who can’t hire a lawyer because he doesn’t know any facts about the accusations against him. It also aids the public defender who can more easily manipulate the defendant into a plea if he also keeps the defendant in the dark, as did the public defender first appointed in the case I observed.
The judges and court staff were involved in a number of unlawful customary practices together. An example of one which I was told about by a county employee is clerical issuance of arrest warrants, i.e. the clerks do it instead of the judges, who are supposed to be reviewing the warrant applications and personally making determinations of probable cause. That helps the Yolo District Attorney to arrest innocent people for profit. Judges were not issuing or permitting clerks to issue fee waivers for copies in violation of California Rules of Court, because as the clerk said “That’s how we make our money.” Judges and court staff collaborated to prevent litigants from serving statements of disqualification on judges by denying them access to the court clerk or judge for direct service as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure sec. 170.3(c)(1).
I have also read Rexroad’s jump-to- a-conclusion comment on his blog, and many other similar comments which attempt to characterize what occurred the other day as an isolated instance. Rexroad, as a Yolo County official, I am not surprised to see you shilling for Yolo County. Neither your nor other similar comments are based on any serious factual investigation. Most such comments probably represent wishful thinking. Closing courtrooms and denying defendants a public trial is both routine and customary as a tactic to influence the outcome of cases in the Yolo County Superior Court in violation of a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
The defendant’s right to a public trial includes the right to be present in a judge’s chambers when court is being conducted there, as discussed in the Valenzuela case above. However, the Yolo County Superior Court has a customary practice of holding chambers conferences before any hearing and excluding defendants and the public from attending those conferences. Most issues are decided secretly at the chambers conferences for the most part, with the hearings on the record actually being pro forma announcements of the decisions already made by the court. In other counties, chambers conferences are always attended by a court reporter, but not in Yolo County. Maybe some judges or commissioners in Yolo County use a court reporter in chambers, but in the case I observed, when transcripts were requested, the reply was always that there was no court reporter present and no record of the conference. Everyone disappeared, came out, and a decision was announced to the defendant from the bench.
Even when the defendant represented herself, that defendant was left outside while the judge met with the deputy district attorney in chambers in violation of judicial ethics prohibitions against ex parte communication. We later confirmed with a bailiff that he was trained to bar defendants from entering the chambers. I have no doubt that if this practice had been previously exposed, the court would be claiming a mistake, just as it is doing now. There is no doubt that this practice was used to harm the defendant in the case I observed; I am told that in chambers in the presence of the defendant’s attorney, Judge Fall admitted the statute of limitations had passed, which meant charges he planned to dismiss could not be re-filed-–but outside in the courtroom on the record, he dismissed the charges without prejudice, as a last slap at the innocent defendant, to create a false appearance she could be re-arrested.
Imagine that you are a defendant and your public defender has been bribed to have you convicted. He goes into chambers without you and lies about you, telling the judge you are guilty or crazy; you don’t even know you are being sold down the river by your own attorney, so you can’t protect yourself. Now imagine you also don’t find out the judge is in on it because you are sitting outside in the cold. Something like that happened in the case I observed. That is why there is a constitutional requirement for public hearings.
Now imagine you want to complain about it to a higher court. In the Valenzuela case footnote, the court says you have to have placed on the record evidence you were excluded—but the Yolo County Superior Court holds the secret conferences without going on the record, doesn’t allow you to speak, makes you stand behind the old-fashioned court bar away from the microphone, uses aggressive law enforcement officers to intimidate you into silence and if you do say something, the court reporter doesn’t include it in the transcript. Now what can you do? When your corrupt attorney refuses to try to get you into chambers, should you ask that he be replaced? Well, how are you going to do that when the Yolo County Clerk’s Office won’t file a Marsden motion for substitution for you in violation of case law that requires it to do so—because the presiding judge told them not to do it? That is how the Yolo County Superior Court has abused judicial administration to influence the outcome of cases.
In 2006, I witnessed a defendant who had been directed to appear before Judge Doris Shockley in her courtroom, and whose name appeared on the calendar, locked out of that courtroom in a conspiracy to falsely arrest that defendant for failure to appear in order to pressure that defendant, who was factually innocent and had demanded a defense, to falsely take a plea. While the defendant waited outside, the public defender assigned to the defendant came by, saw the defendant, and went down the stairs. A Yolo County District Attorney’s investigator had both of us under surveillance. Only when I became very suspicious and advised the defendant to bang on the door a second time, did we learn the case had been moved; while the case was moved, the same public defender who had seen the defendant was calling the defendant’s home, pretending he was trying to locate the defendant. When the DA investigator heard me tell the defendant I suspected a setup for a false arrest, he ran to the elevator like a rabbit. Only by the skin of the defendant’s teeth did the defendant escape false arrest, because the retired judge to which the case had been reassigned even refused to allow her to address him. Later, the defendant’s question to him, “May I speak?” and his response, refusing to allow her to speak, was excised from the transcript for which the defendant paid cash. I, along with other witnesses, were present, and I have no doubt, that had we not been present, the defendant would have been falsely re-arrested and jailed to give the prosecution an advantage in attempting to convict a wholly innocent person, who was in fact a crime victim.
At a subsequent critical motion hearing nearing the end of the case, the Yolo County Superior Court replaced their usual courtroom staff with substitutes. After I entered the courtroom accompanied by African-Americans, I was accosted and falsely accused of chewing gum, and ordered out of the courtroom. I had to threaten court administration with a civil rights lawsuit before I was allowed to enter the courtroom in time to hear Judge Mock unethically advocating for the prosecution in a case in which deputy DA Jay Linden declined to make any argument. At the next hearing, I observed the bailiff and another security officer chewing gum. I checked the court rules, and found out there was no rule against chewing gum.
When the Yolo County Superior Court was finally forced to dismiss the case, which I believe was due in substantial part to pressure from outside the court, the case was moved to a smaller courtroom before Judge Timothy Fall. Family and friends had gathered in anticipation of what they hoped would be a dismissal, but immediately the bailiff claimed there was no room and asked everyone to leave other than the defendant and her attorney. I stayed but the defendant’s family and other friends left. They were told they would be called in when the case was called. Once outside the courtroom, the bailiff came out and ordered them to go far down the hall. So they had to go sit by the elevators down the hall. During the chambers conference, I am told DA Jay Linden falsely stated to Judge Fall that the defendant’s friends and family would be disruptive, and Judge Fall said he wasn’t about to permit them to disrupt his courtroom. In years of litigation, the defendant’s friends and family had never disrupted the courtroom, but the hearing was held without them being present. Had there been a disruption, the court would have been entitled to ask them to leave, but as it was done, a public hearing was denied. The real reason was sour grapes and sore losers.
I want to add that in the initial years of the case I have mentioned, we had serious difficulties securing entrance to the courthouse through the downstairs entrance, and I was even threatened with arrest in objecting to the harassment. We expended serious time and resources in opposing the obstruction of our entry into the courthouse.
Davis is more cosmopolitan than the rest of Yolo County. I, like many Davis residents, am a displaced urbanite. We do not truly get that Yolo County remains a backwards, rural county in the worst sense of that description. The very rural courts resemble the worst stereotype of what we understand a backwards rural place to be. The Yolo County Superior Court is a pre-Civil Rights era Deep South court. The defendant felt she was in the 1940s Deep South. I agreed we were in the Deep South but I would have gone back way farther in time than the 1940s. Worse, we have no Atticus Finch [the lawyer in To Kill a Mockingbird] in Yolo County. However, what has struck me is that the Yolo County Superior Court is actually operating under the laws of that era, while ignoring modern law; I have seen the Yolo County Superior Court use the pre-1968 Sesslin definition of a complaint, giving the defendant only a copy of the charges stated in the statutory language without any factual allegations, and I have seen the Yolo County Superior Court sanction legal representation of the pro forma fake quality disapproved by the United States Supreme Court in 1932 in Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0287_0045_ZS.html. I have literally stepped into the past and experienced the frustrations which previous generations fought to overcome in our judicial system, and supposedly had, but their victories are all lost in Yolo County. Unfortunately, all of the institutions whose responsibility it is to supervise this court are in civilized urban locations like San Francisco and Sacramento, and the people there don’t seem to get it either. They don’t seem to understand with what they are dealing, its seriousness, or the urgency of taking extreme measures to cut it out and down. They don’t take seriously the damage this little rural court is inflicting on people here, for lack of anything better to do.
The case discussed here is only exemplary. We discovered others. How many more there are remains to be revealed.
Nothing will clean Yolo County but perhaps the United States Department of Justice. All Yolo County residents—and all concerned members of the public– should join in supporting a full, in-depth public corruption investigation of the Yolo County Superior Court and related Yolo County offices by the United States Department of Justice. With everything that is wrong in this county, injustice can happen to any of us at any time. This type of behavior has to be stopped now. It can’t go on any further. Please call the United States Department of Justice, ask for the public corruption division, which is also at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/pubcorrupt/pubcorrupt.htm and ask them to clean up public corruption in Yolo County. The corruption hotline number is 800-376-5991. Thank you!
Focus on process has become front and center because a mistake in process could result in nullifying a potential guilty verdict later on down the road. What an awful thing for the family of the victim.
As for the arraignment, that bell has already been rung – a good defense attorney can argue prejudice has already attached, and another arraignment will not wash off the taint. In fact, it will draw even more attention to the crimes charged – what defendant is arraigned twice just to be sure he is fully charged the right way? The defense attorney will argue “overkill” (pardon the pun).
Venue needs to be changed immediately, before any more damage is done. Already the stage has been set that this alleged perp cannot get a fair trial. And don’t fault defense attorneys. If you were charged with a crime, you would be the first to invoke your right to an attorney. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has the right to a fair trail – which right about now looks impossible to get in Yolo County.
Focus on process has become front and center because a mistake in process could result in nullifying a potential guilty verdict later on down the road. What an awful thing for the family of the victim.
As for the arraignment, that bell has already been rung – a good defense attorney can argue prejudice has already attached, and another arraignment will not wash off the taint. In fact, it will draw even more attention to the crimes charged – what defendant is arraigned twice just to be sure he is fully charged the right way? The defense attorney will argue “overkill” (pardon the pun).
Venue needs to be changed immediately, before any more damage is done. Already the stage has been set that this alleged perp cannot get a fair trial. And don’t fault defense attorneys. If you were charged with a crime, you would be the first to invoke your right to an attorney. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has the right to a fair trail – which right about now looks impossible to get in Yolo County.
Focus on process has become front and center because a mistake in process could result in nullifying a potential guilty verdict later on down the road. What an awful thing for the family of the victim.
As for the arraignment, that bell has already been rung – a good defense attorney can argue prejudice has already attached, and another arraignment will not wash off the taint. In fact, it will draw even more attention to the crimes charged – what defendant is arraigned twice just to be sure he is fully charged the right way? The defense attorney will argue “overkill” (pardon the pun).
Venue needs to be changed immediately, before any more damage is done. Already the stage has been set that this alleged perp cannot get a fair trial. And don’t fault defense attorneys. If you were charged with a crime, you would be the first to invoke your right to an attorney. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has the right to a fair trail – which right about now looks impossible to get in Yolo County.
Focus on process has become front and center because a mistake in process could result in nullifying a potential guilty verdict later on down the road. What an awful thing for the family of the victim.
As for the arraignment, that bell has already been rung – a good defense attorney can argue prejudice has already attached, and another arraignment will not wash off the taint. In fact, it will draw even more attention to the crimes charged – what defendant is arraigned twice just to be sure he is fully charged the right way? The defense attorney will argue “overkill” (pardon the pun).
Venue needs to be changed immediately, before any more damage is done. Already the stage has been set that this alleged perp cannot get a fair trial. And don’t fault defense attorneys. If you were charged with a crime, you would be the first to invoke your right to an attorney. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has the right to a fair trail – which right about now looks impossible to get in Yolo County.
Mike Harrington, a presiding judge is not a figure of worship. David Rosenberg in no way is capable of fixing what is wrong with the Yolo County Superior Court. His comments dishonestly claiming it was all a mistake and his failure to promptly vacate the arraignment after admitting the defendant’s rights were violated say everything anyone has to know about his lack of commitment to change the status quo. However, even if he was willing to do so, no one man can conduct the thorough public corruption investigations which are required. If Rosenberg was serious, he would be calling in the FBI himself. He is probably the one chiefly responsible if wool was pulled over the Judicial Performance Commission’s eyes last month. Mike Harrington, what do you know about Yolo County judicial system’s deficiencies? How can anyone take you seriously? You are just another mouthpiece for the status quo under which you have benefited. You don’t want Yolo County to look bad because it will reflect on you, so you are trying to smooth it all over. On the other hand, I am impressed by the many testimonies of people who have had problems with access to the court and other problems. They are very persuasive in establishing that a full investigation is required, not a one man lie show, or a two man since you, Harrington, and your buddy Rosenberg can perform a duet. By the way Harrington, with law enforcement as corrupt and judges as unscrupulous as they are in this county, nobody in their right mind would voluntarily identify themselves when expressing their opinions. It is regrettable we have devolved into the functional equivalent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany when it comes to free speech.
Mike Harrington, a presiding judge is not a figure of worship. David Rosenberg in no way is capable of fixing what is wrong with the Yolo County Superior Court. His comments dishonestly claiming it was all a mistake and his failure to promptly vacate the arraignment after admitting the defendant’s rights were violated say everything anyone has to know about his lack of commitment to change the status quo. However, even if he was willing to do so, no one man can conduct the thorough public corruption investigations which are required. If Rosenberg was serious, he would be calling in the FBI himself. He is probably the one chiefly responsible if wool was pulled over the Judicial Performance Commission’s eyes last month. Mike Harrington, what do you know about Yolo County judicial system’s deficiencies? How can anyone take you seriously? You are just another mouthpiece for the status quo under which you have benefited. You don’t want Yolo County to look bad because it will reflect on you, so you are trying to smooth it all over. On the other hand, I am impressed by the many testimonies of people who have had problems with access to the court and other problems. They are very persuasive in establishing that a full investigation is required, not a one man lie show, or a two man since you, Harrington, and your buddy Rosenberg can perform a duet. By the way Harrington, with law enforcement as corrupt and judges as unscrupulous as they are in this county, nobody in their right mind would voluntarily identify themselves when expressing their opinions. It is regrettable we have devolved into the functional equivalent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany when it comes to free speech.
Mike Harrington, a presiding judge is not a figure of worship. David Rosenberg in no way is capable of fixing what is wrong with the Yolo County Superior Court. His comments dishonestly claiming it was all a mistake and his failure to promptly vacate the arraignment after admitting the defendant’s rights were violated say everything anyone has to know about his lack of commitment to change the status quo. However, even if he was willing to do so, no one man can conduct the thorough public corruption investigations which are required. If Rosenberg was serious, he would be calling in the FBI himself. He is probably the one chiefly responsible if wool was pulled over the Judicial Performance Commission’s eyes last month. Mike Harrington, what do you know about Yolo County judicial system’s deficiencies? How can anyone take you seriously? You are just another mouthpiece for the status quo under which you have benefited. You don’t want Yolo County to look bad because it will reflect on you, so you are trying to smooth it all over. On the other hand, I am impressed by the many testimonies of people who have had problems with access to the court and other problems. They are very persuasive in establishing that a full investigation is required, not a one man lie show, or a two man since you, Harrington, and your buddy Rosenberg can perform a duet. By the way Harrington, with law enforcement as corrupt and judges as unscrupulous as they are in this county, nobody in their right mind would voluntarily identify themselves when expressing their opinions. It is regrettable we have devolved into the functional equivalent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany when it comes to free speech.
Mike Harrington, a presiding judge is not a figure of worship. David Rosenberg in no way is capable of fixing what is wrong with the Yolo County Superior Court. His comments dishonestly claiming it was all a mistake and his failure to promptly vacate the arraignment after admitting the defendant’s rights were violated say everything anyone has to know about his lack of commitment to change the status quo. However, even if he was willing to do so, no one man can conduct the thorough public corruption investigations which are required. If Rosenberg was serious, he would be calling in the FBI himself. He is probably the one chiefly responsible if wool was pulled over the Judicial Performance Commission’s eyes last month. Mike Harrington, what do you know about Yolo County judicial system’s deficiencies? How can anyone take you seriously? You are just another mouthpiece for the status quo under which you have benefited. You don’t want Yolo County to look bad because it will reflect on you, so you are trying to smooth it all over. On the other hand, I am impressed by the many testimonies of people who have had problems with access to the court and other problems. They are very persuasive in establishing that a full investigation is required, not a one man lie show, or a two man since you, Harrington, and your buddy Rosenberg can perform a duet. By the way Harrington, with law enforcement as corrupt and judges as unscrupulous as they are in this county, nobody in their right mind would voluntarily identify themselves when expressing their opinions. It is regrettable we have devolved into the functional equivalent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany when it comes to free speech.
“However, what has struck me is that the Yolo County Superior Court is actually operating under the laws of that era, while ignoring modern law;”
Unless the Presiding Judge takes a firm grip on his judicial bench, his judges are able to ignore clear law laid down by our legislature. Unfortunately, the position of Presiding Judge is a rotating one, elected by their peers on the bench, for the most part, a “popularity contest” and internally highly political. Ambitious Presiding Judges,career-wise, are often very reluctant to rock their boat.
“However, what has struck me is that the Yolo County Superior Court is actually operating under the laws of that era, while ignoring modern law;”
Unless the Presiding Judge takes a firm grip on his judicial bench, his judges are able to ignore clear law laid down by our legislature. Unfortunately, the position of Presiding Judge is a rotating one, elected by their peers on the bench, for the most part, a “popularity contest” and internally highly political. Ambitious Presiding Judges,career-wise, are often very reluctant to rock their boat.
“However, what has struck me is that the Yolo County Superior Court is actually operating under the laws of that era, while ignoring modern law;”
Unless the Presiding Judge takes a firm grip on his judicial bench, his judges are able to ignore clear law laid down by our legislature. Unfortunately, the position of Presiding Judge is a rotating one, elected by their peers on the bench, for the most part, a “popularity contest” and internally highly political. Ambitious Presiding Judges,career-wise, are often very reluctant to rock their boat.
“However, what has struck me is that the Yolo County Superior Court is actually operating under the laws of that era, while ignoring modern law;”
Unless the Presiding Judge takes a firm grip on his judicial bench, his judges are able to ignore clear law laid down by our legislature. Unfortunately, the position of Presiding Judge is a rotating one, elected by their peers on the bench, for the most part, a “popularity contest” and internally highly political. Ambitious Presiding Judges,career-wise, are often very reluctant to rock their boat.
I’ve been in Judge Rosenberg’s courtroom numerous times. He runs a tight ship.
I’ve been in Judge Rosenberg’s courtroom numerous times. He runs a tight ship.
I’ve been in Judge Rosenberg’s courtroom numerous times. He runs a tight ship.
I’ve been in Judge Rosenberg’s courtroom numerous times. He runs a tight ship.
“I’ve been in Judge Rosenberg’s courtroom numerous times. He runs a tight ship.”
Superior court judges run their own courtrooms and Judge Rosenberg may very well “run a tight ship”. The position of Presiding Judge,however, offers and demands the excercise of additional authority and responsibility over the functioning of the entire Yolo judicial bench.
“I’ve been in Judge Rosenberg’s courtroom numerous times. He runs a tight ship.”
Superior court judges run their own courtrooms and Judge Rosenberg may very well “run a tight ship”. The position of Presiding Judge,however, offers and demands the excercise of additional authority and responsibility over the functioning of the entire Yolo judicial bench.
“I’ve been in Judge Rosenberg’s courtroom numerous times. He runs a tight ship.”
Superior court judges run their own courtrooms and Judge Rosenberg may very well “run a tight ship”. The position of Presiding Judge,however, offers and demands the excercise of additional authority and responsibility over the functioning of the entire Yolo judicial bench.
“I’ve been in Judge Rosenberg’s courtroom numerous times. He runs a tight ship.”
Superior court judges run their own courtrooms and Judge Rosenberg may very well “run a tight ship”. The position of Presiding Judge,however, offers and demands the excercise of additional authority and responsibility over the functioning of the entire Yolo judicial bench.
To Anon on 6/23/08 at 10:38 p.m.
You talk too much. If you learn brevity and concision a lot more people will hear you.
To Anon on 6/23/08 at 10:38 p.m.
You talk too much. If you learn brevity and concision a lot more people will hear you.
To Anon on 6/23/08 at 10:38 p.m.
You talk too much. If you learn brevity and concision a lot more people will hear you.
To Anon on 6/23/08 at 10:38 p.m.
You talk too much. If you learn brevity and concision a lot more people will hear you.
To Anon:
I am perfectly capable of expressing myself with brevity and concision. I chose to express myself at length. Anyone who chooses not to read it due to its length is not among its intended audience. Your ability to communicate as well as your personality would be enhanced by a reduction in conceit.
To Anon:
I am perfectly capable of expressing myself with brevity and concision. I chose to express myself at length. Anyone who chooses not to read it due to its length is not among its intended audience. Your ability to communicate as well as your personality would be enhanced by a reduction in conceit.
To Anon:
I am perfectly capable of expressing myself with brevity and concision. I chose to express myself at length. Anyone who chooses not to read it due to its length is not among its intended audience. Your ability to communicate as well as your personality would be enhanced by a reduction in conceit.
To Anon:
I am perfectly capable of expressing myself with brevity and concision. I chose to express myself at length. Anyone who chooses not to read it due to its length is not among its intended audience. Your ability to communicate as well as your personality would be enhanced by a reduction in conceit.
RE: Anon on 6/23/08 at 10:38 p.m.
Yeow!
I think this is a UCD grad student posting a thesis online.
RE: Anon on 6/23/08 at 10:38 p.m.
Yeow!
I think this is a UCD grad student posting a thesis online.
RE: Anon on 6/23/08 at 10:38 p.m.
Yeow!
I think this is a UCD grad student posting a thesis online.
RE: Anon on 6/23/08 at 10:38 p.m.
Yeow!
I think this is a UCD grad student posting a thesis online.
You are wrong. It is a shame that in a college community, there are so many lazy readers.
You are wrong. It is a shame that in a college community, there are so many lazy readers.
You are wrong. It is a shame that in a college community, there are so many lazy readers.
You are wrong. It is a shame that in a college community, there are so many lazy readers.
Annonymous 10:38 pm – I read every word and really liked it. It was well-reasoned and definitely expressed a full idea. Sometimes a snide comment just will not suffice.
Annonymous 10:38 pm – I read every word and really liked it. It was well-reasoned and definitely expressed a full idea. Sometimes a snide comment just will not suffice.
Annonymous 10:38 pm – I read every word and really liked it. It was well-reasoned and definitely expressed a full idea. Sometimes a snide comment just will not suffice.
Annonymous 10:38 pm – I read every word and really liked it. It was well-reasoned and definitely expressed a full idea. Sometimes a snide comment just will not suffice.
DPD and Advertisers, Supporters, and Contributors: How I wish I had had the Blog or something similar when I was on the City Council. A lot of things went on during meetings that were off camera, or never reported in the local press. DPD digs for the information, and mostly gets it right.
As to the court system, I have practiced in dozens of various venues around the country. Our local court is a good one. Sure, it needs some process improvements, but overall, on a day to day working basis, it is a good place for most litigants and counsel.
Also, remember that Presiding Judge Rosenberg has taken the lead on getting state funding for a badly-needed new courthouse. (I think we are at the top of the funding list, finally.) It is very disruptive, and I am sure nerve-wrecking for the security personnel, when prisoners are moved around in the same hallways and tight spaces as members of the public. The courtrooms should be much larger, handling larger crowds like those who want to attend the more high-profile case hearings.
Again, closing the Diaz hearing was wrong, no matter what the cause, but I think the court process and procedure should benefit from the recent mistakes, benefiting all who participate in the judicial process.
DPD and Advertisers, Supporters, and Contributors: How I wish I had had the Blog or something similar when I was on the City Council. A lot of things went on during meetings that were off camera, or never reported in the local press. DPD digs for the information, and mostly gets it right.
As to the court system, I have practiced in dozens of various venues around the country. Our local court is a good one. Sure, it needs some process improvements, but overall, on a day to day working basis, it is a good place for most litigants and counsel.
Also, remember that Presiding Judge Rosenberg has taken the lead on getting state funding for a badly-needed new courthouse. (I think we are at the top of the funding list, finally.) It is very disruptive, and I am sure nerve-wrecking for the security personnel, when prisoners are moved around in the same hallways and tight spaces as members of the public. The courtrooms should be much larger, handling larger crowds like those who want to attend the more high-profile case hearings.
Again, closing the Diaz hearing was wrong, no matter what the cause, but I think the court process and procedure should benefit from the recent mistakes, benefiting all who participate in the judicial process.
DPD and Advertisers, Supporters, and Contributors: How I wish I had had the Blog or something similar when I was on the City Council. A lot of things went on during meetings that were off camera, or never reported in the local press. DPD digs for the information, and mostly gets it right.
As to the court system, I have practiced in dozens of various venues around the country. Our local court is a good one. Sure, it needs some process improvements, but overall, on a day to day working basis, it is a good place for most litigants and counsel.
Also, remember that Presiding Judge Rosenberg has taken the lead on getting state funding for a badly-needed new courthouse. (I think we are at the top of the funding list, finally.) It is very disruptive, and I am sure nerve-wrecking for the security personnel, when prisoners are moved around in the same hallways and tight spaces as members of the public. The courtrooms should be much larger, handling larger crowds like those who want to attend the more high-profile case hearings.
Again, closing the Diaz hearing was wrong, no matter what the cause, but I think the court process and procedure should benefit from the recent mistakes, benefiting all who participate in the judicial process.
DPD and Advertisers, Supporters, and Contributors: How I wish I had had the Blog or something similar when I was on the City Council. A lot of things went on during meetings that were off camera, or never reported in the local press. DPD digs for the information, and mostly gets it right.
As to the court system, I have practiced in dozens of various venues around the country. Our local court is a good one. Sure, it needs some process improvements, but overall, on a day to day working basis, it is a good place for most litigants and counsel.
Also, remember that Presiding Judge Rosenberg has taken the lead on getting state funding for a badly-needed new courthouse. (I think we are at the top of the funding list, finally.) It is very disruptive, and I am sure nerve-wrecking for the security personnel, when prisoners are moved around in the same hallways and tight spaces as members of the public. The courtrooms should be much larger, handling larger crowds like those who want to attend the more high-profile case hearings.
Again, closing the Diaz hearing was wrong, no matter what the cause, but I think the court process and procedure should benefit from the recent mistakes, benefiting all who participate in the judicial process.
I just finished reading Presiding Judge Rosenberg’s press release concerning the court’s investigation on what happened and who is to blame for the lock out of the public in this case. Of course, it turns out that the Yolo County Sheriff Department is totally to blame and Presiding Judge Rosenberg finishes his press release by saying, “I trust the sheriff will take appropriate action within his department and will also implement measures to ensure that these kinds of errors will not recur.” That’s it?
Wow! I find it amazing that Presiding Judge Rosenberg failed to recognize that Commissioner Beronio was utterly clueless in not recognizing that having a courtroom jam-packed with Deputy Sheriffs should have prompted her to ask what was going on. She did order that court room seating be on a “first come, first serve” basis. Is she so obtuse that she couldn’t recognize that either all the Deputies scurried to the front of the line or that something was amiss?
Presiding Judge Rosenberg, lay the blame with the Sheriff, but also accept responsibility that the Court failed to recognize what was going on and react accordingly. And, to be honest folks, that frightens me even more than an over-emotional response by Sheriff Deputies in charge of security. It shows an incredible lack of ability on the Court’s part to use critical analysis in a difficult circumstance.
Presiding Judge Rosenberg, we expect more accountability please and less self-serving posturing than you just threw out in your press conference.
I just finished reading Presiding Judge Rosenberg’s press release concerning the court’s investigation on what happened and who is to blame for the lock out of the public in this case. Of course, it turns out that the Yolo County Sheriff Department is totally to blame and Presiding Judge Rosenberg finishes his press release by saying, “I trust the sheriff will take appropriate action within his department and will also implement measures to ensure that these kinds of errors will not recur.” That’s it?
Wow! I find it amazing that Presiding Judge Rosenberg failed to recognize that Commissioner Beronio was utterly clueless in not recognizing that having a courtroom jam-packed with Deputy Sheriffs should have prompted her to ask what was going on. She did order that court room seating be on a “first come, first serve” basis. Is she so obtuse that she couldn’t recognize that either all the Deputies scurried to the front of the line or that something was amiss?
Presiding Judge Rosenberg, lay the blame with the Sheriff, but also accept responsibility that the Court failed to recognize what was going on and react accordingly. And, to be honest folks, that frightens me even more than an over-emotional response by Sheriff Deputies in charge of security. It shows an incredible lack of ability on the Court’s part to use critical analysis in a difficult circumstance.
Presiding Judge Rosenberg, we expect more accountability please and less self-serving posturing than you just threw out in your press conference.
I just finished reading Presiding Judge Rosenberg’s press release concerning the court’s investigation on what happened and who is to blame for the lock out of the public in this case. Of course, it turns out that the Yolo County Sheriff Department is totally to blame and Presiding Judge Rosenberg finishes his press release by saying, “I trust the sheriff will take appropriate action within his department and will also implement measures to ensure that these kinds of errors will not recur.” That’s it?
Wow! I find it amazing that Presiding Judge Rosenberg failed to recognize that Commissioner Beronio was utterly clueless in not recognizing that having a courtroom jam-packed with Deputy Sheriffs should have prompted her to ask what was going on. She did order that court room seating be on a “first come, first serve” basis. Is she so obtuse that she couldn’t recognize that either all the Deputies scurried to the front of the line or that something was amiss?
Presiding Judge Rosenberg, lay the blame with the Sheriff, but also accept responsibility that the Court failed to recognize what was going on and react accordingly. And, to be honest folks, that frightens me even more than an over-emotional response by Sheriff Deputies in charge of security. It shows an incredible lack of ability on the Court’s part to use critical analysis in a difficult circumstance.
Presiding Judge Rosenberg, we expect more accountability please and less self-serving posturing than you just threw out in your press conference.
I just finished reading Presiding Judge Rosenberg’s press release concerning the court’s investigation on what happened and who is to blame for the lock out of the public in this case. Of course, it turns out that the Yolo County Sheriff Department is totally to blame and Presiding Judge Rosenberg finishes his press release by saying, “I trust the sheriff will take appropriate action within his department and will also implement measures to ensure that these kinds of errors will not recur.” That’s it?
Wow! I find it amazing that Presiding Judge Rosenberg failed to recognize that Commissioner Beronio was utterly clueless in not recognizing that having a courtroom jam-packed with Deputy Sheriffs should have prompted her to ask what was going on. She did order that court room seating be on a “first come, first serve” basis. Is she so obtuse that she couldn’t recognize that either all the Deputies scurried to the front of the line or that something was amiss?
Presiding Judge Rosenberg, lay the blame with the Sheriff, but also accept responsibility that the Court failed to recognize what was going on and react accordingly. And, to be honest folks, that frightens me even more than an over-emotional response by Sheriff Deputies in charge of security. It shows an incredible lack of ability on the Court’s part to use critical analysis in a difficult circumstance.
Presiding Judge Rosenberg, we expect more accountability please and less self-serving posturing than you just threw out in your press conference.
“Also, remember that Presiding Judge Rosenberg has taken the lead on getting state funding for a badly-needed new courthouse.”
What does this have to do with a constitutional mandate that all parts of a criminal proceeding shall be open to the public. What part of open to the public, and all parts of a criminal proceeding don’t you understand? There was a constitutional violation, which at the very least will give a good defense attorney ammunition to attack any guilty verdict. And all Judge Rosenberg can say is tsk, tsk, tut, tut, it musn’t happen again Sheriff Prieto? Talk about not only passing the buck, but how about missing the buck!
“Also, remember that Presiding Judge Rosenberg has taken the lead on getting state funding for a badly-needed new courthouse.”
What does this have to do with a constitutional mandate that all parts of a criminal proceeding shall be open to the public. What part of open to the public, and all parts of a criminal proceeding don’t you understand? There was a constitutional violation, which at the very least will give a good defense attorney ammunition to attack any guilty verdict. And all Judge Rosenberg can say is tsk, tsk, tut, tut, it musn’t happen again Sheriff Prieto? Talk about not only passing the buck, but how about missing the buck!
“Also, remember that Presiding Judge Rosenberg has taken the lead on getting state funding for a badly-needed new courthouse.”
What does this have to do with a constitutional mandate that all parts of a criminal proceeding shall be open to the public. What part of open to the public, and all parts of a criminal proceeding don’t you understand? There was a constitutional violation, which at the very least will give a good defense attorney ammunition to attack any guilty verdict. And all Judge Rosenberg can say is tsk, tsk, tut, tut, it musn’t happen again Sheriff Prieto? Talk about not only passing the buck, but how about missing the buck!
“Also, remember that Presiding Judge Rosenberg has taken the lead on getting state funding for a badly-needed new courthouse.”
What does this have to do with a constitutional mandate that all parts of a criminal proceeding shall be open to the public. What part of open to the public, and all parts of a criminal proceeding don’t you understand? There was a constitutional violation, which at the very least will give a good defense attorney ammunition to attack any guilty verdict. And all Judge Rosenberg can say is tsk, tsk, tut, tut, it musn’t happen again Sheriff Prieto? Talk about not only passing the buck, but how about missing the buck!
Answer to Mike Harrington’s post:
The new courthouse is badly needed and I agree that Dave Rosenberg has worked very hard to make this happen. I also agree that Judge Rosenberg’s Court is one of the more tightly run courts with the Judge treating all – defendents, victims, attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers, parents, witnesses, jury members – in a very respectful and professional manner.
However, overall the place is not, in your words “on a day to day working basis, it is a good place for most litigants and counsel.”
Where have you been?
Over the last many months we have heard and talked about repeated problems concerning the justice system in Yolo County. Everything from over-zealous prosecution of minor offenses by the DA’s office to the recent “star chamber” hearing courtesy of the Sheriff’s Department. The place is scary to most people and definitely not a good place to have to go to for any reason.
The Public Defender, Dean Johannsen, had it right – he managed to bring up the issue of the lock out and made it part of the court record. Now it is up to us to be appropriately outraged and demand changes.
Frankly, Mike, your attitude stinks.
Answer to Mike Harrington’s post:
The new courthouse is badly needed and I agree that Dave Rosenberg has worked very hard to make this happen. I also agree that Judge Rosenberg’s Court is one of the more tightly run courts with the Judge treating all – defendents, victims, attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers, parents, witnesses, jury members – in a very respectful and professional manner.
However, overall the place is not, in your words “on a day to day working basis, it is a good place for most litigants and counsel.”
Where have you been?
Over the last many months we have heard and talked about repeated problems concerning the justice system in Yolo County. Everything from over-zealous prosecution of minor offenses by the DA’s office to the recent “star chamber” hearing courtesy of the Sheriff’s Department. The place is scary to most people and definitely not a good place to have to go to for any reason.
The Public Defender, Dean Johannsen, had it right – he managed to bring up the issue of the lock out and made it part of the court record. Now it is up to us to be appropriately outraged and demand changes.
Frankly, Mike, your attitude stinks.
Answer to Mike Harrington’s post:
The new courthouse is badly needed and I agree that Dave Rosenberg has worked very hard to make this happen. I also agree that Judge Rosenberg’s Court is one of the more tightly run courts with the Judge treating all – defendents, victims, attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers, parents, witnesses, jury members – in a very respectful and professional manner.
However, overall the place is not, in your words “on a day to day working basis, it is a good place for most litigants and counsel.”
Where have you been?
Over the last many months we have heard and talked about repeated problems concerning the justice system in Yolo County. Everything from over-zealous prosecution of minor offenses by the DA’s office to the recent “star chamber” hearing courtesy of the Sheriff’s Department. The place is scary to most people and definitely not a good place to have to go to for any reason.
The Public Defender, Dean Johannsen, had it right – he managed to bring up the issue of the lock out and made it part of the court record. Now it is up to us to be appropriately outraged and demand changes.
Frankly, Mike, your attitude stinks.
Answer to Mike Harrington’s post:
The new courthouse is badly needed and I agree that Dave Rosenberg has worked very hard to make this happen. I also agree that Judge Rosenberg’s Court is one of the more tightly run courts with the Judge treating all – defendents, victims, attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers, parents, witnesses, jury members – in a very respectful and professional manner.
However, overall the place is not, in your words “on a day to day working basis, it is a good place for most litigants and counsel.”
Where have you been?
Over the last many months we have heard and talked about repeated problems concerning the justice system in Yolo County. Everything from over-zealous prosecution of minor offenses by the DA’s office to the recent “star chamber” hearing courtesy of the Sheriff’s Department. The place is scary to most people and definitely not a good place to have to go to for any reason.
The Public Defender, Dean Johannsen, had it right – he managed to bring up the issue of the lock out and made it part of the court record. Now it is up to us to be appropriately outraged and demand changes.
Frankly, Mike, your attitude stinks.
I can’t help but wonder what Deputy Sheriff Diaz, a former bailiff himself and a good one, would think about the screw up by the deputies handling of the Topete arraignment.
Unfortunately, his co-workers’ desire to honor him in a show of force at his murderer’s arraignment has brought dishonor to the Department.
I can’t help but wonder what Deputy Sheriff Diaz, a former bailiff himself and a good one, would think about the screw up by the deputies handling of the Topete arraignment.
Unfortunately, his co-workers’ desire to honor him in a show of force at his murderer’s arraignment has brought dishonor to the Department.
I can’t help but wonder what Deputy Sheriff Diaz, a former bailiff himself and a good one, would think about the screw up by the deputies handling of the Topete arraignment.
Unfortunately, his co-workers’ desire to honor him in a show of force at his murderer’s arraignment has brought dishonor to the Department.
I can’t help but wonder what Deputy Sheriff Diaz, a former bailiff himself and a good one, would think about the screw up by the deputies handling of the Topete arraignment.
Unfortunately, his co-workers’ desire to honor him in a show of force at his murderer’s arraignment has brought dishonor to the Department.