In addition to Senator Romero’s role as Majority Leader, she also chairs the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
According to a release from the Majority Leader’s Office on Monday, the California Supreme Court, upholding the constitutional right to public trials, has held that a judge may close a courtroom only under very limited circumstances and after making specified findings on the record in open court.
“The recent incident in Yolo County is a shocking reminder of how easily these constitutional rights can be violated… Open, public courts are a cornerstone of our system of justice.”
“Sheriff’s deputies must provide bailiff and security services to county courts in a manner that protects the constitutional right of defendants to a public trial and the right of the public to attend court proceedings… The Judicial Council’s pending rulemaking on courtroom security provides an ideal opportunity to be proactive and ensure that courtrooms throughout California are open to the public.”
In a letter to William Vickrey, the Administrative Director of the Court on the Judicial Council, Senator Romero wrote:
“The recent incident in Yolo County is a shocking reminder of how easily these constitutional rights can be violated. On June 18, 2008, during the arraignment of a defendant charged with murdering a sheriffs deputy, courtroom deputies locked the media and public, including the defendant’s family, out of the courtroom. The deputies allowed the victim’s family and other law enforcement officers into the courtroom through a side door. An internal investigation concluded that the deputies did not follow the presiding commissioner’s order that entry be on a first-come, first-served basis. The sheriff said locking the courtroom was a mistake but that he did not intend to discipline the deputies involved. The county’s presiding judge said that he lacked authority to take action against these deputies because they provide security services to the courts pursuant to contract.”
Furthermore she was concerned with the fact that this was not simply an isolated incident that indicated a simple mistake:
“News reports indicate that this was not an isolated case of denying access to court proceedings in Yolo County. Moreover, anecdotal evidence indicates that bailiffs in other counties have unlawfully locked courtrooms, such as during the start of afternoon session while a judge finishes up cases left over from the morning calendar.”
The Senator is proposing new language to the Superior Court Law Enforcement Act of 2002 which requires the presiding judge and sheriff in each county to develop a security plan. The suggested language would require sheriff’s deputies to provide courtroom security services in a manner that protects the right to public court proceedings.
The proposal adds two key sections. First:
“Each court security plan must address how the presiding judge and sheriff will ensure that security services are provided in a manner that protects the Sixth Amendment right of criminal defendants to a public trial and the right of public access to court proceedings under the First Amendment and Section 124 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
Second:
“Describe policies and procedures for ensuring that security services are provided in a manner that protects the Sixth Amendment right of criminal defendants to a public trial and the right of public access to court proceedings under the First Amendment and Section 124 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Describe the training to be provided to ensure that courtrooms remain open to the public unless a lawful court order authorizes closure. Describe outreach efforts to local media and any Bench-Bar-Media Committee to facilitate discussion of concerns about fair trials, the free press, and other key issues affecting the courts, the media, and the public.”
According to the Senator, requiring counties to address these constitutional rights will:
“will guarantee that county judges and sheriffs specify how they will protect these rights when they develop their security plans before the November 1, 2009, deadline. It will enable them to identify education and training necessary to ensure that no deputy or court staff mistakenly denies the public or media access to court proceedings. It will help counties avoid the expense of having to retry a defendant if a conviction is overturned because the constitutional right to a public trial was violated.”
Senator Romero continues:
“As you know, open court proceedings are a cornerstone of our system of justice. Openness assures the public that justice is administered fairly and guards against prosecutorial bias and perjury. Public confidence in our judicial system will quickly erode if we do not take steps now to ensure that courts do not operate in secret. Thus, I strongly urge you to revise your pending rules to help protect the constitutional right of public access to courts.”
Senator Gloria Romero has a long track record in advocating for open government. She has been outspoken in several attempts recently to open up police records to public scrutiny. She has successfully modified the Brown Act to facilitate open government in local meetings. And now she has proposed strong new language that at the very least will make presiding judges cognizant of their responsibility to provide open court proceedings. Such changes will, if nothing else, force presiding judges to consider the consequences of locking courtroom doors.
Yolo County must continue to sort out this situation on their own. However, it is clear that the rest of the state has taken notice, and that can only be a good thing in terms of bringing down pressure to resolve the situation in the best possible way.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I think this reaction by others in the know gives the lie to the claim that the denial of a public arraignment to Topete was just a simple “mistake” by the Sheriff’s Dept. It was an institutional error in the court system of epic proportions, which could result in any conviction being overturned on appeal. This would be a disservice to not only the public at large, but to the victim’s family.
So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves? Sheer arrogance comes to mind. I have to wonder if Rosenberg believes his friends in high places are going to bail him out of this one (pardon the pun) – but the long range strategy of that move could be devastating.
This reminds me of former DA Henderson’s colossal blunder – charging the wrong person for a twelve year old crime, while giving short shrift to the victim Andrew Mockus in a case occurring concurrently. Henderson was so caught up in trying to solve an old crime, he wasn’t giving the proper attention to a considerably more recent crime involving the purposeful killing of a 14 year old child.
The result of that inattention was to let off one of the perpetrators with no jail time, who went on to murder another shortly thereafter. Rosenberg’s inattention to the venue issue and concern for his reputation is clouding his judgment as to the overall picture of how this case should be prosecuted. He wants this high profile case to remain in his jurisdiction, as does the DA’s Office and the Sheriff’s Dept. But at what cost?
I think this reaction by others in the know gives the lie to the claim that the denial of a public arraignment to Topete was just a simple “mistake” by the Sheriff’s Dept. It was an institutional error in the court system of epic proportions, which could result in any conviction being overturned on appeal. This would be a disservice to not only the public at large, but to the victim’s family.
So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves? Sheer arrogance comes to mind. I have to wonder if Rosenberg believes his friends in high places are going to bail him out of this one (pardon the pun) – but the long range strategy of that move could be devastating.
This reminds me of former DA Henderson’s colossal blunder – charging the wrong person for a twelve year old crime, while giving short shrift to the victim Andrew Mockus in a case occurring concurrently. Henderson was so caught up in trying to solve an old crime, he wasn’t giving the proper attention to a considerably more recent crime involving the purposeful killing of a 14 year old child.
The result of that inattention was to let off one of the perpetrators with no jail time, who went on to murder another shortly thereafter. Rosenberg’s inattention to the venue issue and concern for his reputation is clouding his judgment as to the overall picture of how this case should be prosecuted. He wants this high profile case to remain in his jurisdiction, as does the DA’s Office and the Sheriff’s Dept. But at what cost?
I think this reaction by others in the know gives the lie to the claim that the denial of a public arraignment to Topete was just a simple “mistake” by the Sheriff’s Dept. It was an institutional error in the court system of epic proportions, which could result in any conviction being overturned on appeal. This would be a disservice to not only the public at large, but to the victim’s family.
So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves? Sheer arrogance comes to mind. I have to wonder if Rosenberg believes his friends in high places are going to bail him out of this one (pardon the pun) – but the long range strategy of that move could be devastating.
This reminds me of former DA Henderson’s colossal blunder – charging the wrong person for a twelve year old crime, while giving short shrift to the victim Andrew Mockus in a case occurring concurrently. Henderson was so caught up in trying to solve an old crime, he wasn’t giving the proper attention to a considerably more recent crime involving the purposeful killing of a 14 year old child.
The result of that inattention was to let off one of the perpetrators with no jail time, who went on to murder another shortly thereafter. Rosenberg’s inattention to the venue issue and concern for his reputation is clouding his judgment as to the overall picture of how this case should be prosecuted. He wants this high profile case to remain in his jurisdiction, as does the DA’s Office and the Sheriff’s Dept. But at what cost?
I think this reaction by others in the know gives the lie to the claim that the denial of a public arraignment to Topete was just a simple “mistake” by the Sheriff’s Dept. It was an institutional error in the court system of epic proportions, which could result in any conviction being overturned on appeal. This would be a disservice to not only the public at large, but to the victim’s family.
So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves? Sheer arrogance comes to mind. I have to wonder if Rosenberg believes his friends in high places are going to bail him out of this one (pardon the pun) – but the long range strategy of that move could be devastating.
This reminds me of former DA Henderson’s colossal blunder – charging the wrong person for a twelve year old crime, while giving short shrift to the victim Andrew Mockus in a case occurring concurrently. Henderson was so caught up in trying to solve an old crime, he wasn’t giving the proper attention to a considerably more recent crime involving the purposeful killing of a 14 year old child.
The result of that inattention was to let off one of the perpetrators with no jail time, who went on to murder another shortly thereafter. Rosenberg’s inattention to the venue issue and concern for his reputation is clouding his judgment as to the overall picture of how this case should be prosecuted. He wants this high profile case to remain in his jurisdiction, as does the DA’s Office and the Sheriff’s Dept. But at what cost?
Rosenberg lost all credibility when he announced the results of an “investigation”, one that, according to the Bee, did not involve speaking to anyone other than court personnel, and resulted in the conclusion that the episode was merely a “mistake” after the Bee had already published an article documenting prior instances of denying public access to the courts.
Not to mention that it now appears that all the judges in the courthouse closed their courtrooms to “mistakenly” allow their bailiffs to attend the hearing while closing out the public.
That’s why Romero has taken up the issue. Rosenberg has treated the situation as a political problem (push the problem over to the Sheriff’s Department, and deny any responsibility, indeed, any ability to ensure public access to the courts at all, secure in the knowledge that the issue will be promptly buried there) instead of an administrative and judicial one.
The objective is to preserve the status quo whereby the judges and the bailiffs can continue to manipulate public access to the courts as they have done in the past, in the hope that this will all blow over. Romero is an encouraging sign that it will not, even if the Supreme Court and the Judicial Council ignore it.
As for Rosenberg, the prospects of an appointment to the Third District Court of Appeal, even if a Democrat succeeds Schwarzenegger, looks more and more unlikely. Some judges and justices have put their political skills to good use in a judicial capacity upon appointment to the bench, but, if this incident is any indication, Rosenberg has not.
–Richard Estes
Rosenberg lost all credibility when he announced the results of an “investigation”, one that, according to the Bee, did not involve speaking to anyone other than court personnel, and resulted in the conclusion that the episode was merely a “mistake” after the Bee had already published an article documenting prior instances of denying public access to the courts.
Not to mention that it now appears that all the judges in the courthouse closed their courtrooms to “mistakenly” allow their bailiffs to attend the hearing while closing out the public.
That’s why Romero has taken up the issue. Rosenberg has treated the situation as a political problem (push the problem over to the Sheriff’s Department, and deny any responsibility, indeed, any ability to ensure public access to the courts at all, secure in the knowledge that the issue will be promptly buried there) instead of an administrative and judicial one.
The objective is to preserve the status quo whereby the judges and the bailiffs can continue to manipulate public access to the courts as they have done in the past, in the hope that this will all blow over. Romero is an encouraging sign that it will not, even if the Supreme Court and the Judicial Council ignore it.
As for Rosenberg, the prospects of an appointment to the Third District Court of Appeal, even if a Democrat succeeds Schwarzenegger, looks more and more unlikely. Some judges and justices have put their political skills to good use in a judicial capacity upon appointment to the bench, but, if this incident is any indication, Rosenberg has not.
–Richard Estes
Rosenberg lost all credibility when he announced the results of an “investigation”, one that, according to the Bee, did not involve speaking to anyone other than court personnel, and resulted in the conclusion that the episode was merely a “mistake” after the Bee had already published an article documenting prior instances of denying public access to the courts.
Not to mention that it now appears that all the judges in the courthouse closed their courtrooms to “mistakenly” allow their bailiffs to attend the hearing while closing out the public.
That’s why Romero has taken up the issue. Rosenberg has treated the situation as a political problem (push the problem over to the Sheriff’s Department, and deny any responsibility, indeed, any ability to ensure public access to the courts at all, secure in the knowledge that the issue will be promptly buried there) instead of an administrative and judicial one.
The objective is to preserve the status quo whereby the judges and the bailiffs can continue to manipulate public access to the courts as they have done in the past, in the hope that this will all blow over. Romero is an encouraging sign that it will not, even if the Supreme Court and the Judicial Council ignore it.
As for Rosenberg, the prospects of an appointment to the Third District Court of Appeal, even if a Democrat succeeds Schwarzenegger, looks more and more unlikely. Some judges and justices have put their political skills to good use in a judicial capacity upon appointment to the bench, but, if this incident is any indication, Rosenberg has not.
–Richard Estes
Rosenberg lost all credibility when he announced the results of an “investigation”, one that, according to the Bee, did not involve speaking to anyone other than court personnel, and resulted in the conclusion that the episode was merely a “mistake” after the Bee had already published an article documenting prior instances of denying public access to the courts.
Not to mention that it now appears that all the judges in the courthouse closed their courtrooms to “mistakenly” allow their bailiffs to attend the hearing while closing out the public.
That’s why Romero has taken up the issue. Rosenberg has treated the situation as a political problem (push the problem over to the Sheriff’s Department, and deny any responsibility, indeed, any ability to ensure public access to the courts at all, secure in the knowledge that the issue will be promptly buried there) instead of an administrative and judicial one.
The objective is to preserve the status quo whereby the judges and the bailiffs can continue to manipulate public access to the courts as they have done in the past, in the hope that this will all blow over. Romero is an encouraging sign that it will not, even if the Supreme Court and the Judicial Council ignore it.
As for Rosenberg, the prospects of an appointment to the Third District Court of Appeal, even if a Democrat succeeds Schwarzenegger, looks more and more unlikely. Some judges and justices have put their political skills to good use in a judicial capacity upon appointment to the bench, but, if this incident is any indication, Rosenberg has not.
–Richard Estes
“As for Rosenberg, the prospects of an appointment to the Third District Court of Appeal…”
Unfortunately, candidates for the position of presiding judge are usually the most politically ambitious with their eyes on a future Appellate appointment. Keeping all power centers happy and not making any political waves is the first order of business.
“As for Rosenberg, the prospects of an appointment to the Third District Court of Appeal…”
Unfortunately, candidates for the position of presiding judge are usually the most politically ambitious with their eyes on a future Appellate appointment. Keeping all power centers happy and not making any political waves is the first order of business.
“As for Rosenberg, the prospects of an appointment to the Third District Court of Appeal…”
Unfortunately, candidates for the position of presiding judge are usually the most politically ambitious with their eyes on a future Appellate appointment. Keeping all power centers happy and not making any political waves is the first order of business.
“As for Rosenberg, the prospects of an appointment to the Third District Court of Appeal…”
Unfortunately, candidates for the position of presiding judge are usually the most politically ambitious with their eyes on a future Appellate appointment. Keeping all power centers happy and not making any political waves is the first order of business.
Bravo to Senator Gloria Romero for having the courage to take up this very important issue.
Member of the bar asked, “So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves? Sheer arrogance comes to mind.”
You are absolutely correct. There is no other reason than sheer arrogance that anyone in their position would choose to do this.
They obviously do not have the best interest in mind of the victim’s family. Instead, their inflated egos have led them to make a poor decision.
As I mentioned yesterday, Yolo Courts, including the DA, have a long history of making a laughing stock of the judicial sytem by circumventing the process or using the courts for grandstanding.
I applaud Senator Romero!
Bravo to Senator Gloria Romero for having the courage to take up this very important issue.
Member of the bar asked, “So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves? Sheer arrogance comes to mind.”
You are absolutely correct. There is no other reason than sheer arrogance that anyone in their position would choose to do this.
They obviously do not have the best interest in mind of the victim’s family. Instead, their inflated egos have led them to make a poor decision.
As I mentioned yesterday, Yolo Courts, including the DA, have a long history of making a laughing stock of the judicial sytem by circumventing the process or using the courts for grandstanding.
I applaud Senator Romero!
Bravo to Senator Gloria Romero for having the courage to take up this very important issue.
Member of the bar asked, “So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves? Sheer arrogance comes to mind.”
You are absolutely correct. There is no other reason than sheer arrogance that anyone in their position would choose to do this.
They obviously do not have the best interest in mind of the victim’s family. Instead, their inflated egos have led them to make a poor decision.
As I mentioned yesterday, Yolo Courts, including the DA, have a long history of making a laughing stock of the judicial sytem by circumventing the process or using the courts for grandstanding.
I applaud Senator Romero!
Bravo to Senator Gloria Romero for having the courage to take up this very important issue.
Member of the bar asked, “So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves? Sheer arrogance comes to mind.”
You are absolutely correct. There is no other reason than sheer arrogance that anyone in their position would choose to do this.
They obviously do not have the best interest in mind of the victim’s family. Instead, their inflated egos have led them to make a poor decision.
As I mentioned yesterday, Yolo Courts, including the DA, have a long history of making a laughing stock of the judicial sytem by circumventing the process or using the courts for grandstanding.
I applaud Senator Romero!
So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves?
Has either party in the lawsuit requested a change of venue?
If not, I don’t believe anyone could properly be accused of “stubbornly refusing.”
So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves?
Has either party in the lawsuit requested a change of venue?
If not, I don’t believe anyone could properly be accused of “stubbornly refusing.”
So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves?
Has either party in the lawsuit requested a change of venue?
If not, I don’t believe anyone could properly be accused of “stubbornly refusing.”
So I have to wonder why Rosenberg and the DA are stubbornly refusing to change venue, when it is clearly in the best interest of everyone involved, including themselves?
Has either party in the lawsuit requested a change of venue?
If not, I don’t believe anyone could properly be accused of “stubbornly refusing.”
“Has either party in the lawsuit requested a change of venue? If not, I don’t believe anyone could properly be accused of “stubbornly refusing.””
If a change of venue is clearly called for because of the circumstances, and Rosenberg continues to refuse to push the DA to ask for a change of venue on its own motion, then I would say that is “stubbornly refusing”.
“Has either party in the lawsuit requested a change of venue? If not, I don’t believe anyone could properly be accused of “stubbornly refusing.””
If a change of venue is clearly called for because of the circumstances, and Rosenberg continues to refuse to push the DA to ask for a change of venue on its own motion, then I would say that is “stubbornly refusing”.
“Has either party in the lawsuit requested a change of venue? If not, I don’t believe anyone could properly be accused of “stubbornly refusing.””
If a change of venue is clearly called for because of the circumstances, and Rosenberg continues to refuse to push the DA to ask for a change of venue on its own motion, then I would say that is “stubbornly refusing”.
“Has either party in the lawsuit requested a change of venue? If not, I don’t believe anyone could properly be accused of “stubbornly refusing.””
If a change of venue is clearly called for because of the circumstances, and Rosenberg continues to refuse to push the DA to ask for a change of venue on its own motion, then I would say that is “stubbornly refusing”.
I thought that the CA Chief Justice had appointed a “committee” to review the situation and make a recommendation as to a change of venue. Isn’t this what the Yolo court is waiting on?
I thought that the CA Chief Justice had appointed a “committee” to review the situation and make a recommendation as to a change of venue. Isn’t this what the Yolo court is waiting on?
I thought that the CA Chief Justice had appointed a “committee” to review the situation and make a recommendation as to a change of venue. Isn’t this what the Yolo court is waiting on?
I thought that the CA Chief Justice had appointed a “committee” to review the situation and make a recommendation as to a change of venue. Isn’t this what the Yolo court is waiting on?
Where were the people complaining about this when they voted to close down Valley Oak!? I can’t support your efforts for a fair and open court system if you people weren’t there for the poor, disadvantaged kids who will now see their school closed! The issues are obviously inter-related, as I can see. I also can’t support Measure J, since those supporters weren’t there for Valley Oak, can’t support a national health care bill if they weren’t there for Valley Oak, and don’t think any of the current crop of Emmy nominees are deserving of an award if they weren’t opposed to the closing of Valley Oak.
Where were the people complaining about this when they voted to close down Valley Oak!? I can’t support your efforts for a fair and open court system if you people weren’t there for the poor, disadvantaged kids who will now see their school closed! The issues are obviously inter-related, as I can see. I also can’t support Measure J, since those supporters weren’t there for Valley Oak, can’t support a national health care bill if they weren’t there for Valley Oak, and don’t think any of the current crop of Emmy nominees are deserving of an award if they weren’t opposed to the closing of Valley Oak.
Where were the people complaining about this when they voted to close down Valley Oak!? I can’t support your efforts for a fair and open court system if you people weren’t there for the poor, disadvantaged kids who will now see their school closed! The issues are obviously inter-related, as I can see. I also can’t support Measure J, since those supporters weren’t there for Valley Oak, can’t support a national health care bill if they weren’t there for Valley Oak, and don’t think any of the current crop of Emmy nominees are deserving of an award if they weren’t opposed to the closing of Valley Oak.
Where were the people complaining about this when they voted to close down Valley Oak!? I can’t support your efforts for a fair and open court system if you people weren’t there for the poor, disadvantaged kids who will now see their school closed! The issues are obviously inter-related, as I can see. I also can’t support Measure J, since those supporters weren’t there for Valley Oak, can’t support a national health care bill if they weren’t there for Valley Oak, and don’t think any of the current crop of Emmy nominees are deserving of an award if they weren’t opposed to the closing of Valley Oak.
i guess i just don’t understand what new rules will do…there is already a law to do this which was in place at the time of the arraignment. So they would now break a law and a rule? This kind of “legislation” is further evidence that we may not need a full time legislature in CA.
i guess i just don’t understand what new rules will do…there is already a law to do this which was in place at the time of the arraignment. So they would now break a law and a rule? This kind of “legislation” is further evidence that we may not need a full time legislature in CA.
i guess i just don’t understand what new rules will do…there is already a law to do this which was in place at the time of the arraignment. So they would now break a law and a rule? This kind of “legislation” is further evidence that we may not need a full time legislature in CA.
i guess i just don’t understand what new rules will do…there is already a law to do this which was in place at the time of the arraignment. So they would now break a law and a rule? This kind of “legislation” is further evidence that we may not need a full time legislature in CA.
Rosenberg continues to refuse to push the DA to ask for a change of venue on its own motion.
I misunderstood your chosen title. Your “bar” regards the consumption of alcoholic beverages. A licensed attorney would know that what you desire to happen is not legal.
Rosenberg continues to refuse to push the DA to ask for a change of venue on its own motion.
I misunderstood your chosen title. Your “bar” regards the consumption of alcoholic beverages. A licensed attorney would know that what you desire to happen is not legal.
Rosenberg continues to refuse to push the DA to ask for a change of venue on its own motion.
I misunderstood your chosen title. Your “bar” regards the consumption of alcoholic beverages. A licensed attorney would know that what you desire to happen is not legal.
Rosenberg continues to refuse to push the DA to ask for a change of venue on its own motion.
I misunderstood your chosen title. Your “bar” regards the consumption of alcoholic beverages. A licensed attorney would know that what you desire to happen is not legal.
Reading Blog Within A Blog reminds me of Maria Ogridziak architecture, wheels within squares going nowhere…
Reading Blog Within A Blog reminds me of Maria Ogridziak architecture, wheels within squares going nowhere…
Reading Blog Within A Blog reminds me of Maria Ogridziak architecture, wheels within squares going nowhere…
Reading Blog Within A Blog reminds me of Maria Ogridziak architecture, wheels within squares going nowhere…
“I misunderstood your chosen title. Your “bar” regards the consumption of alcoholic beverages. A licensed attorney would know that what you desire to happen is not legal.”
DA’s opt to change venue all the time if it suits them.
“I misunderstood your chosen title. Your “bar” regards the consumption of alcoholic beverages. A licensed attorney would know that what you desire to happen is not legal.”
DA’s opt to change venue all the time if it suits them.
“I misunderstood your chosen title. Your “bar” regards the consumption of alcoholic beverages. A licensed attorney would know that what you desire to happen is not legal.”
DA’s opt to change venue all the time if it suits them.
“I misunderstood your chosen title. Your “bar” regards the consumption of alcoholic beverages. A licensed attorney would know that what you desire to happen is not legal.”
DA’s opt to change venue all the time if it suits them.
Member of the bar: The Andrew Mockus murder case was tried in Solano County, not Yolo. Not Henderson’s territory.
Member of the bar: The Andrew Mockus murder case was tried in Solano County, not Yolo. Not Henderson’s territory.
Member of the bar: The Andrew Mockus murder case was tried in Solano County, not Yolo. Not Henderson’s territory.
Member of the bar: The Andrew Mockus murder case was tried in Solano County, not Yolo. Not Henderson’s territory.
Why was it tried in Solano, the incident happened in Davis?
Why was it tried in Solano, the incident happened in Davis?
Why was it tried in Solano, the incident happened in Davis?
Why was it tried in Solano, the incident happened in Davis?
To this Blog and Greenwald,
Rosenberg has always been a self serving lawyer and judge, (the term, lawyer, covers it all). Romero is just another self serving politician with a biased interest, just like david greenwald.
A bunch of losers………..
To this Blog and Greenwald,
Rosenberg has always been a self serving lawyer and judge, (the term, lawyer, covers it all). Romero is just another self serving politician with a biased interest, just like david greenwald.
A bunch of losers………..
To this Blog and Greenwald,
Rosenberg has always been a self serving lawyer and judge, (the term, lawyer, covers it all). Romero is just another self serving politician with a biased interest, just like david greenwald.
A bunch of losers………..
To this Blog and Greenwald,
Rosenberg has always been a self serving lawyer and judge, (the term, lawyer, covers it all). Romero is just another self serving politician with a biased interest, just like david greenwald.
A bunch of losers………..
“Member of the bar: The Andrew Mockus murder case was tried in Solano County, not Yolo. Not Henderson’s territory.”
Henderson was in charge of both cases, and gave short shrift to one that needed attention, while pursuing an old case with nebulous evidence that turned out to be absolutely incorrect. Similarly Rosenberg is refusing to do the right thing, because he either thinks he is bullet proof, or to change venue would somehow ruin his reputation. Keeping the venue where it is will be his undoing, if he only would stop letting his superego get in the way of his judgment.
“Member of the bar: The Andrew Mockus murder case was tried in Solano County, not Yolo. Not Henderson’s territory.”
Henderson was in charge of both cases, and gave short shrift to one that needed attention, while pursuing an old case with nebulous evidence that turned out to be absolutely incorrect. Similarly Rosenberg is refusing to do the right thing, because he either thinks he is bullet proof, or to change venue would somehow ruin his reputation. Keeping the venue where it is will be his undoing, if he only would stop letting his superego get in the way of his judgment.
“Member of the bar: The Andrew Mockus murder case was tried in Solano County, not Yolo. Not Henderson’s territory.”
Henderson was in charge of both cases, and gave short shrift to one that needed attention, while pursuing an old case with nebulous evidence that turned out to be absolutely incorrect. Similarly Rosenberg is refusing to do the right thing, because he either thinks he is bullet proof, or to change venue would somehow ruin his reputation. Keeping the venue where it is will be his undoing, if he only would stop letting his superego get in the way of his judgment.
“Member of the bar: The Andrew Mockus murder case was tried in Solano County, not Yolo. Not Henderson’s territory.”
Henderson was in charge of both cases, and gave short shrift to one that needed attention, while pursuing an old case with nebulous evidence that turned out to be absolutely incorrect. Similarly Rosenberg is refusing to do the right thing, because he either thinks he is bullet proof, or to change venue would somehow ruin his reputation. Keeping the venue where it is will be his undoing, if he only would stop letting his superego get in the way of his judgment.
And did all of you forget? The juvenile murderer of Andrew Mockus, Bettencourt, killed again in Sacramento. Over What? A traffic dispute. This time he shot another person to death with a .45 cal. pistol.
Now the worthless piece of squeeze is sitting in prison, again, and you and yours are paying for it.
And did all of you forget? The juvenile murderer of Andrew Mockus, Bettencourt, killed again in Sacramento. Over What? A traffic dispute. This time he shot another person to death with a .45 cal. pistol.
Now the worthless piece of squeeze is sitting in prison, again, and you and yours are paying for it.
And did all of you forget? The juvenile murderer of Andrew Mockus, Bettencourt, killed again in Sacramento. Over What? A traffic dispute. This time he shot another person to death with a .45 cal. pistol.
Now the worthless piece of squeeze is sitting in prison, again, and you and yours are paying for it.
And did all of you forget? The juvenile murderer of Andrew Mockus, Bettencourt, killed again in Sacramento. Over What? A traffic dispute. This time he shot another person to death with a .45 cal. pistol.
Now the worthless piece of squeeze is sitting in prison, again, and you and yours are paying for it.