This led a frustrated Kathryn Druliner to ask the judge for an explanation. On a number of occasions, the judge angrily responded, at times outright shouting, “I said sustained!” When Ms. Druliner attempted to discuss these matters in a private discussion, he refused.
This continued throughout the trial, in front of the jury, and finally boiled to a head during closing arguments.
During the prosecution’s rebuttal closing statement, Ms. Druliner made a particular objection that was overruled. When she made the objection again, Judge Mock shouted that he had already ruled on that topic.
At this point Ms. Druliner said that she wanted to put the objection on the record. This is a common tactic that may be needed to assist in a possible appeal, should there be the need. A better handling of the matter by Judge Mock might have been to have noted it as a continuing objection. This was handled very deftly, for instance, by Judge Kathleen White in the Gang Injunction Trial that has been bogged down with such objections, but that is sometimes unavoidable. The judge should not be reacting to an objection in that matter, particularly in front of the jury.
Judge Mock then again shouted that she can put it on the record after the closing statement is done and the jury has been sent away to deliberate.
When that time came, a few minutes later, the judge duly asked defense to put into the record what she had wanted to. Again, his decision to have it put on the record without the jury present was reasonable perhaps, but his conduct and manner of handling it was completely inappropriate.
Kathryn Druliner then laid out her case. She said, “What I’m going to say is probably going to make the court yell at me again.” She said that, during the course of the trial, the court has yelled at her “repeatedly, repeatedly.” She said that twice for emphasis.
She felt that perhaps this is because she is a Sacramento lawyer in Yolo County. Perhaps her personality displeases the judge. Perhaps because the judge is a former Yolo County Prosecutor. Or perhaps because Yolo County is a small county and she is in their sandbox. She emphasized that she did not know what it was.
She said it was important for her to get this all on the record because of the appeal that would be lodged, were her client to be convicted of anything.
Ms Druliner added, “Never in 20 years of practice have I been treated that way.”
“A toxic courtroom is of major concern to the appeals courts,” she said, pointing out that they take it seriously when judges target attorneys for harsh treatment. She said that although the transcript says “overruled” or “sustained,” the tone of the judge is not reflected there, and the reader does not know that these words were shouted out in the courtroom in full presence of the jury.
Ms Druliner said that, yes, it is the prosecutor’s job to state objections. However, she said that on the topic of hearsay, in which her line of questioning was mostly blocked by the judge, she was not allowed to explain which of the 57 hearsay objection exceptions might apply to her question. Similarly, she found her objections to the prosecution’s line of questioning to be repeatedly overruled. She said that she wanted to note in particular that the judge denied her requests to approach the bench on the various topics. She added that it was the judge’s job to hear the reason before deciding about an objection.
Judge Mock acknowledged at this point that, “yes, I did raise my voice.” He said that in those instances he believed that her objections were not made in good faith, or that she was repeating her comments on subjects that he had already decided upon.
Judge Mock stated that the appeals courts will do their job and examine what they examine. He said that, despite his yelling, the jury has been instructed to disregard any and all of that.
Ms. Druliner replied that, though the jury may very well have been instructed so, juries always believe that “the judge is the smartest lawyer in the courtroom” and that if he is displeased that there must be a good reason for it, and that his yelling at her will sit heavily and prominently in their minds.
This is the point I think Judge Mock misses. Instructions do not necessarily take the place of an impression formed in the jury’s mind. When you have a judge repeatedly yelling at one attorney, it will bias them. Judge Mock, from what we witnessed in this case, acted in a way that was prejudicial to a jury and he put the entire trial and verdict in doubt.
As we will discuss once a verdict is reached, the case appears very questionable at this point. There is a good deal of ambiguity and doubt about the situation. However, Judge Mock excluded evidence that was potentially exculpatory in nature. The biggest concern is the impact of his clearly unprofessional conduct on the jury. I have never seen another judge raise their voice to counsel. I did witness Judge Fall act in a condescending manner, however, and believe that was inappropriate as well.
If Judge Mock had a problem, he should have pulled Ms. Druliner into chambers and dealt with the matter privately. If he had a continued problem with her conduct, he could have sanctioned her. These could have been done in a private and discreet manner, so as to not influence or potentially influence the jury.
I was appalled by what I witnessed. It was not conduct that you would expect from a judge, particularly a judge like Judge Mock, with a reasonable reputation. I saw no rhyme or reason as to why he was sustaining some objections and overruling others for what seemed to be the same question or type of questions. Even the wording seemed similar, if not identical, in construction. An explanation would have been helpful, not just to Ms. Druliner but also to the jurors, I would think.
The Vanguard will have an interview with Ms. Druliner about her thoughts on the case, after the verdict comes in.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The story relates that counsel raised objections during closing argument. Such a tactic is very unusual, as it is a shared understanding by the court and counsel that final argument is only argument and not a presentation on facts and evidence. Opposing counsel will counter the “objectionable” point when his/her time is given for argument.
Skilled trial attorneys all know that repeatedly objecting at every opportunity (and there often many) is eventually self-defeating. Courts and juries grow weary of the continuous interruptions. The attorney takes on the appearance of being a pest.
Objectionable questions that have little or no impact on the merits of the case, are instead given a “pass” by the opposing attorney to keep the flow of the courtroom process going. Judges see this and appreciate it, and it may benefit the silent attorney later on.
When objections are raised without stated reasons, and ruled in the same fashion, that usually means that the basis for the objection and ruling was so obvious to the contesting lawyers an explanation
is unnecessary.
Allowing for the obvious bias of this story–consistent with most other reports of Yolo courtroom proceedings–one senses that the sitting judge became frustrated with one, and perhaps both, attorneys and their courtroom strategies. This does not excuse the outburst, if it were accurately reported.
The point is well taken that Judge Mock could have taken both attorneys “behind the woodshed” gave them a good spanking and told them to act more responsibly. And, indeed, that may have happened in a more informal setting out of sight of the casual observer. There is fascinating body language exchanges between attorneys and the court if one has the skill set to look for them.
Not saying that this is the case here, but an unscrupulous defense attorney in a hopeless case will sometimes compromise the process in hopes of getting a favorable appeal rather than argue the merits of the case. It would be interesting to put the defense attorney through the same scrutiny as shown here in the depiction of Judge Mock. Thus far however, this site has shown no such inclination or sense of balance.
[quote]The story relates that counsel raised objections during closing argument. Such a tactic is very unusual[/quote]
Mr. Coleman, I think I have sat in on at least fifteen closing arguments, I think at least in 12 of them there were objections, sometimes multiple objections. Most of it has to do with either a misstatement of the evidence or the introduction of evidence that was ruled inadmissible. Closing statements contrary to popular belief are not a free-for-all where one side can say whatever they want.
While the closing issue was the trigger for her comments, the objection problems were pervasive through out. And more to the point, his reaction to them was not appropriate.
“Not saying that this is the case here, but an unscrupulous defense attorney in a hopeless case will sometimes compromise the process in hopes of getting a favorable appeal rather than argue the merits of the case.”
I don’t believe this is the case at all. In fact, I suspect that the defense is likely to at least partially prevail here.
Also, there were equal, if not greater, numbers of objections by the prosecuting attorney during closing arguments, as well as during opening statements. And there were multiple outbursts from the bench.
Sounds like it was a contentious trial, which happens. Phil Coleman made some interesting and acute observations. Most trial attorneys who are any good will know when to keep their mouth shut, and when to speak up. It is important for a trial attorney to recognize that frequent interruptions are going to irritate the judge. And make no mistake, the judge wields a lot of power in the courtroom. Frequent interruptions can be a trial tactic, but it can also backfire as well as set the tenor for the entire case.
dmg: “Mr. Coleman, I think I have sat in on at least fifteen closing arguments, I think at least in 12 of them there were objections, sometimes multiple objections. Most of it has to do with either a misstatement of the evidence or the introduction of evidence that was ruled inadmissible. “
But it does not seem as if misstatement of evidence or introduction of inadmissable evidence was what was going on here. You even go as far as to concede ” his decision to have it put on the record without the jury present was reasonable perhaps…”
dmg: “While the closing issue was the trigger for her comments, the objection problems were pervasive through out.”
But we don’t know whether the objections were reasonable or not… In fact, the defense attorney ultimately created her own issue for appeal… which may or may not have been intentional.
As a criminal defense trial lawyer for ten years, and then an appellate attorney for another ten, I want to contribute some of my experience here, especially with reference to the questions of objections. But first I think it’s important to understand that there is still a lot of sexism in the courtroom; I could tell you stories about what I’ve experienced in Solano county where I practiced that would leave your jaw on the floor. There is a lot of hierarchical thinking, too, which I suppose goes hand in hand with sexism.. .The attorney got it just right when she commented on being the new kid in the sandbox! I am so sorry that she had to endure being yelled at and otherwise treated poorly in the courtroom. It is unacceptable, and I hope someone who is involved with this case takes this to the bar so that it doesn’t happen again; although sad to say this conduct is not as unusual as one might think.
About objections: many judges lack understanding of the appellate process and do not appreciate what it takes to create a record for appeal. For counsel, a key aspect of making a record is to object to a ruling which appears erroneous and to state how that error prejudices the case. If counsel does not or cannot do this, then that basis for appeal is waived. Now, I have read numerous appellate records which reflected that counsel did not understand how to make a record. But when counsel asks to create a record, as this attorney did here, and is prevented from doing so in a timely fashion, it weakens the judicial process and sometimes prohibits an appeal from going forward at all. If the client is convicted and wants to appeal, there may be some difficulty resulting from the way the judge conducted the trial.
As human beings, judges make errors in their rulings from the bench all the time. The rules of evidence are especially complicated in sex cases; there’s a lot of room for error. Counsel objected because she thought the court ruled erroneously; that was the only way to preserve her arguments for appeal. It makes sense to me that she objected frequently.
There are many reasons to object. I think generalizations about when it’s good to object should be duly noted, but each case is unique. In criminal cases, there is often prosecutorial misconduct and the most frequent place where that occurs is in closing argument. In my experience both as a trial and appellate attorney, objections during closing argument are crucial if misconduct occurs, to both stop the misconduct and preserve the issue or appeal. I don’t know if there was misconduct in this case; but there may have been; if so, then the attorney did the absolute right thing by objecting, because she preserved the issue for appeal. Had she remained silent, any error in closing which may have prejudiced the jury, would have been waived.
Nora Oldwin: “There are many reasons to object. I think generalizations about when it’s good to object should be duly noted, but each case is unique. In criminal cases, there is often prosecutorial misconduct and the most frequent place where that occurs is in closing argument. In my experience both as a trial and appellate attorney, objections during closing argument are crucial if misconduct occurs, to both stop the misconduct and preserve the issue or appeal. I don’t know if there was misconduct in this case; but there may have been; if so, then the attorney did the absolute right thing by objecting, because she preserved the issue for appeal. Had she remained silent, any error in closing which may have prejudiced the jury, would have been waived.”
Thank you so much for your insight and the intelligent assessment above. The problem here is we do not know if there was misconduct, and if so, by who. It does seem to have been a very contentious trial, which is not all that unusual. My trial experience has been in the family court arena, which can get highly emotional, as you can imagine.
I think one thing that stands out in my mind in trial work is that it is not always easy to know what the best thing to do is. A trial attorney has to figure out on the fly whether to object and on what grounds, and whether it is an objection worth making. Not an easy task, so there has to be a lot of give and take in a trial, by all parties concerned. If everyone is acting like the professionals they are supposed to be, a trial should run relatively smoothly. But things come up, sometimes an attorney MUST defend his client vigorously, and things can get heated. And biases come into play as well…
The only way this “insight and intelligent assessment” could get any more biased is to interview the defense attorney.
Seriously, just once, wouldn’t you like to see David provide a fair and balanced assessment of an issue? I wouldn’t have to go to any of these trials to write David’s articles for him. They are entirely predictable and, consequently, must be divorced from the facts, which are always more complexed and nuanced than David’s position on them.
[quote] The problem here is we do not know if there was misconduct – Allowing for the obvious bias of this story–consistent with most other reports of Yolo courtroom proceeding [/quote]
This is the second time you have implied David “makes up things or can’t be believed”. Not only inappropriate, unfair and very bias on your part, it is just another tactic to throw smoke and cloud an issue.
Perhaps if other newspapers, did some of their own reporting and actually wrote their own pieces (like David does) then we could compare how the two saw things differently. Unfortunately, all we get from the local news papers is re-printed press releases from county officials with no objective review or analysis. So you go ahead and believe what the Gov tells you, I will put my money on someone’s first hand view of what they saw, verses a re-print of a politicians view of what they want people to think happened.
Perhaps if other newspapers, did some of their own reporting and actually wrote their own pieces (like David does) then we could compare how the two saw things differently[quote][/quote]
This isn’t a newspaper and David isn’t a journalist. Those misconceptions are a big part of the problem here.
Sanity Defense: “This isn’t a newspaper and David isn’t a journalist. Those misconceptions are a big part of the problem here.”
You are correct in that this is not a newspaper. However, biased though he may be, David is indeed a journalist:[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist[/url].
Not agreeing with someone’s position does not make them wrong, nor does it mean that there is a “misconception”. You may serve your position well by explaining what the “problem” is as you see it. Many of these issues are, as you said, complex and nuanced, but I doubt those that frequent this site believe anything to the contrary.
“But we don’t know whether the objections were reasonable or not…”
Elaine: I’m not sure that matters, my problem was whether they were reasonable or not, Judge Mock’s reaction was not reasonable and prejudicial.
The defendant in this case was acquitted on the main charge today, story will come out on Monday, some very interesting things to glean from the verdicts and their implications. Before you vindicate the Judge here, I think the jury in this case was rather exceptional in their diligence and degree of scrutiny they gave this case. All involved praised their work.
Whether there was prosecutorial misconduct, I don’t know. I do know that attorneys have to put things on the record in order to appeal them later. Judge Mock knows this.
“Perhaps if other newspapers, did some of their own reporting and actually wrote their own pieces (like David does) then we could compare how the two saw things differently”
Newspapers used to write stories about court proceedings. Unfortunately David’s blog is the only way news from the Yolo county courts is getting out to the people. The newspapers in this county only print what the DA’s office puts out. If you don’t believe what David is saying in his blog sit in on some of the proceedings yourself.
Also I try to be very accurate in terms of the other side’s viewpoint, when available. So if you want to know Judge Mock’s perspective, it was captured here:
[quote]Judge Mock acknowledged at this point that, “yes, I did raise my voice.” He said that in those instances he believed that her objections were not made in good faith, or that she was repeating her comments on subjects that he had already decided upon.
Judge Mock stated that the appeals courts will do their job and examine what they examine. He said that despite his yelling, the jury has been instructed to disregard any and all of that.[/quote]
Ms. Druhliner was more vocal and spoke longer. Basically the article goes like this: (1) Druhliner’s view (2) Mock’s view and (3) my view/ analysis.
Now what would help balance the story would be if the DA would talk to me, people say oh I can’t be fair, tell me, was Mr. Emlen’s interview fairly captured today?
[quote]… tell me, was Mr. Emlen’s interview fairly captured today? [/quote] I’m thinking, since only David & Bill Emlen were parties to the interview (and to my knowledge, only David has put the account in writing), they are the only two who are competent to say whether the interview was fairly captured.
Fair enough, but do you think it was a fair article to him?
By all appearances, it was definitely not “unfair” (no twisting of words, no derogatory comments), but, as I said, I’m in no position judge. Bill Emlen, in my experience, has made mistakes, has had successes. Who hasn’t had that kind of mixed bag? I believe you captured an honest perspective of his departure.
BTW, I “get” that you thought that the information you got when you announced the resignation, was already “out there” (I admit I didn’t think that, at first… “my bad”?). I don’t think it was meant to be, but I fully understand that you had little/no reason to think it was perfectly appropriate to propagate the news of it.
hpierce: I appreciate both of your comments. I agree with you on Bill Emlen, he has had successes and made mistakes. I view my job more as that of a watchful eye. For instance, I think he did a very good job of finding a good police chief in 2007 when we desperately needed someone who could bring the department and the community together. I also think he did a good job moving forward on the fire department merger. From what I understand he had to overcome a lot of organizational resistance to do so.
And I appreciate your acknowledgment on the announcement.
It would appear that the most verbose & Hon. Mock is off his rocking chair & possible stumbling off his psychotropic medication(s).
Welcome to Yolo county where most judges were former local supervisors, council & prosecutors. In order to operate a motor vehicle or build a house one needs a test, but there is no test for Calif judges just be an attorney for seven years. It’s an outrageous arrangement & stage for incompetent judges like Mock, Rosenthal & Basha to conduct the courts business; all with enough baggage to down a jetliner.
The Hon. Steve Basha, former county council concealed a fabricated foster youth felony investigation as council Basha concealed then Yolo Chief Don L. Meyer’ criminal acts. Yolo calculates & conceals its liabilities by total control & manipulation of the criminal justice system.
The Hon. Dave Rosenthal, the former supe assured the grand jury would never investigate; which protects the judge’s former colleagues on the BOS.
The Hon. Donna M. Petre, presiding judge (2005) made the appointment of chief Meyer from Calaveras and then concealed the fact that a PC 832.5 was mishandled & later fabricated. Petre assured that the grand jury would never investigate, identical to Calaveras.
We now have Sac county personnel director, Dave Devine, who wrote on August 20th that Sac probation dept was under no “obligation” to investigate then Calaveras chief, Don L. Meyer, after Meyer went back to his former employer to investigate Meyer. Since Sac probation accepted the investigation wouldn’t that constitute an ‘obligation’ even if they ditched the investigation days later? Sac Chief Don l. Meyer, needed the fabricated investigation to get the Yolo appointment.
But not according to Sac county & Dave Devine. Devine continued to misrepresent the facts which apparently is now the truth. We are choking on a level of incompetence & back slapping with county & state officials who can’t perform their jobs ethically which ironically guarantees job protection.
Assemblywomen, Mariko Yamada, whose also a social worker made the Meyer appointment & has done everything in her power to avoid any accountability & the supposed ethics committee with Skinner, D-Berkeley, have gone along for the ride; PC 832.5 citizen’s complaints on behalf of state foster youth of color are fabricated & concealed cause the white man is running the show.
Greenwald: pull CV06-541 from the Yolo court house and see for yourself how a suit filed against that court, grand jury and probation was handled.
Yeah, Jake is back!
[quote] Before you vindicate the Judge here, I think the jury in this case was rather exceptional in their diligence and degree of scrutiny they gave this case. All involved praised their work. [/quote]
This is the first I’ve I have seen you leave a positive remark about a jury. Just an observation but you have kind words for juries that find a defendant not guilty. If the jury find a defendant guilty they A) rushed to a verdict because they want to go home, B) the DA is guilty of of courtroom atrocities, C) the police lied.
Please highlight a case where you believe a conviction was reached in a proper manner.
I’m my opinion you’ve asked me the wrong question. What you should ask is what the jury did right here that they didn’t in other cases. In this case, they very carefully weighed the evidence, they came back with questions as they narrowed the focus, the moved from the main charge and moved down to lesser included charges. They spent a full two days of deliberation, and very carefully assessed the evidence along the way.
Compare that to the Galvan case where the jury according to the one we spoke to entered the deliberations with a preset notion and refused to basically discuss the evidence or consider other viewpoints, which basically cut off deliberations and forced a hung jury.
Several other cases that I thought were rather complex, the jury came back almost immediately. They did not weigh complex legal issues. They didn’t show the type of insight or diligence of this group.
In this case, the Judge went out of his way to praise the jury rather than just thank them for their work.
Actually I asked the question I intended to ask. Point out a conviction that you feel the process was handled properly. This was a complicated case. A he said she said matter to nth degree. The video and and officers didn’t see it happen, only the aftermath.
This was not the case in the Ruiz/Walmart case. The evidence, including video, was there. Like I said in that thread, You can always cast doubt but it has to be reasonable.
Most of the articles on davisvanguard.com are very informative, then you go to the YJDW side. I read the vanguard to learn, I read YJDW to provide some levity.
Showcasing a case or two where the process was handled properly and a conviction was obtained that would give you more credibility. At this point YJDW with essentially a “fight the man” website”. I’m sure even Jake Wallace could find one case.
Mr. Obvious:
The WalMart case I think is a good illustration of my point here. We know there was a crime committed there, the question is whether Mr. Ruiz committed it. It was caught on video, but we are not privy to the conversations nor can we see the critical moment in the car. We don’t know when she exits the car what Mr. Ruiz knows about her intentions.
We can guess. It’s not an unreasonable conclusion, but in my opinion there is reasonable doubt that he knew what she intended to do. However, I think it is possible even likely that he did participate in the commission of the crime.
My problem is that the crime does not fit four felony charges. She stole less than $150 in merchandise, that should at worst be a petty theft charge, at worst.
People seem to expect one size fits all in terms of the problems in the system, I don’t think the jury is the key problem here or in most cases. I do think they play a part at times by reversing the burden of proof and deciding which defendants they like and which they don’t like.
The biggest problem I have are the decisions as to which crimes to charge and the legislature taking away all discretion from the judges in terms of mandatory and minimum sentences.
In some places there are real problems with ineffective defense counsel, I have not seen a lot of that here and do not believe for the most part that is the problem.
As far as showcasing a case or two where process was handled properly, I will when I witness one. I’m not saying all verdicts and cases were done improperly, because I know there are a lot of cases where they have been, but understand we’re cherry picking cases most likely to have problems because we don’t have the resources yet to watch all cases.
I understand following certain cases that may be problematic, I have no problem with that. Where I see the bias is that in all the time you have spent in the courtrooms you haven’t seen ONE case handled to your expectation. That shows the bias.
In the Ruiz case I posted the definitions of the crimes committed. The burglary and conspiracy happened the first time he entered Walmart. He was a principal to the burglary committed by is partner when she went back in. This isn’t a kid that sees something he wants and shoves in in their pocket. This showed planning and sophistication.
Or perhaps it shows there is something fundamentally wrong with the system.
In terms of the Ruiz case, I understand the rationale for the charges, the problem is in making that rationale you lose fundamental site of the harm posed by the overall crime is quite minor and therefore you are subjecting someone who committed a very minor crime at best to exposure for four felonies. I don’t see how that is justified.
In terms of planning and sophistication, it was sloppy and bungled if that’s what they did. They spent a long time in full of security and cameras. A more sophisticated operation would have had one person go in, pick the merchandise, leave one set of the products in a cart. Pay for them and allow the other to go in with the receipt. That would have shown planning and sophistication.
In case, the charges should never been more than the bottom line.
[quote]In terms of the Ruiz case, I understand the rationale for the charges, the problem is in making that rationale you lose fundamental site of the harm posed by the overall crime is quite minor and therefore you are subjecting someone who committed a very minor crime at best to exposure for four felonies. I don’t see how that is justified. [/quote]
First of all Mr Ruiz subjected himself to being charged with four felonies, not the state. It’s not as if someone was holding a gun to his head to make him commit the crime.
The criminal laws are present to protect those who choose to follow them and punish those who do not. What about the average retailers loss that comes from thefts, some reports put the loss at 32 BILLION a year. The Ruiz case didn’t show a guy stealing a carton of eggs to feed his kids, he worked with a known thief.
So if a person continually commits “petty theft” should there be no further consequences? I see no difference in this than a crew who runs a continuing receipt/return scam. The principal is the same regardless of the dollar amount.
What if someone enters your house through an unlocked door and takes items worth less than $400, should it be petty theft?
I don’t think Mr. Ruiz’s crime amounts to four felonies, the DA has the discretion as to what to charge in every instance and the penalty should fit the crime.
The criminal laws in this case, especially conspiracy, were designed not for the Ruiz’ of the world, but rather to get at people who are not present at crimes, but for whom crimes are committed at the behest of. Its another way like RICO to get at more organized forms of crime. And that’s fine, but just as I think we have misused gang laws in this county, I think we’re applying conspiracy crimes for cases that were never intended. It’s irrelevant to Mr. Ruiz if the loss of retailers is $32 billion because Mr. Ruiz’ contribution is still $150 of that, at most.
“What if someone enters your house through an unlocked door and takes items worth less than $400, should it be petty theft?”
Wouldn’t that be first degree burglary? But should they be sent to prison for seven years, which I believe is the penalty for first degree burglary? No, I don’t think so. And that’s a big problem because now in order to address a relatively minor crime, the state is paying out $300,000 or more for incarceration and other costs. We can’t afford that.
dmg: “Elaine: I’m not sure that matters, my problem was whether they were reasonable or not, Judge Mock’s reaction was not reasonable and prejudicial.”
If the defense or DA were being very unreasonable, it would explain why the judge lost patience.
erm:”The problem here is we do not know if there was misconduct – Allowing for the obvious bias of this story–consistent with most other reports of Yolo courtroom proceeding”
roger rabbit: “This is the second time you have implied David “makes up things or can’t be believed”. Not only inappropriate, unfair and very bias on your part, it is just another tactic to throw smoke and cloud an issue.”
My concern here is the possibility of a preconceived agenda, in which the cases and information chosen are carefully selected (cherrypicked) to fit a preconceived agenda. And one has to be somewhat familiar with the legal system and how it works, or events in a trial can be easily misunderstood. I have been in the courtroom – as a pro se litigant (representing myself), as a represented client and as an attorney representing a client. I do not always agree with David’s assessments, or don’t feel there is enough information to draw his conclusion. Other times I may agree with his assessment. And David has felt free to disagree with me or add additional information and insight. Why is that such a problem for you?
In my view, and we watched the entire case, she did nothing that provoked him or should have provoked him to shout. Did something happen behind closed doors? I don’t know, but he should have handled it behind closed doors, not screamed at an attorney in full view of the jury. There is no excuse for that. None. His conduct was inappropriate for a judge or anyone.
dgm:”In my view, and we watched the entire case, she did nothing that provoked him or should have provoked him to shout. Did something happen behind closed doors? I don’t know, but he should have handled it behind closed doors, not screamed at an attorney in full view of the jury. There is no excuse for that. None. His conduct was inappropriate for a judge or anyone.”
You have now elevated Judge Mock’s conduct from “raising his voice” to “shouting”, and now to “screaming”, yet all Judge Mock admitted to was “raising his voice”…
I don’t think you should read into my variance of word choices to mean anything but variety. From the start my point is that it was inappropriate conduct on the part of the judge, that has not changed.
A judge is supposed to be an impartial person in the court room. There should never be an instance where a judge raises his voice at anybody in any circumstance in his court room.
Obvious and ERM: You are attacking David for reporting misconduct of a judge?????
Why are you NOT UPSET that a judge would act this way. The judge’s behavior was so bad that the defense attorney felt compelled to make statements in the court record about it. The defense attorney knew her statements were going to upset the judge again, but felt that it was important enough to take on Judge Mock’s anger to report it.
Unfortunately, I know another defense lawyer from outside the “sandbox” who also said that he was shocked at how disrespectful the judge was. This was not Mock, but Fall.
FAI: “Obvious and ERM: You are attacking David for reporting misconduct of a judge?????”
You are taking David’s word for it that there was misconduct???
dmg: “I don’t think you should read into my variance of word choices to mean anything but variety. From the start my point is that it was inappropriate conduct on the part of the judge, that has not changed.”
Your words are what the reader is basing his/her opinion of what happened on, and if there was any misconduct. If you are introducing hyperbole into the equation, that becomes very problematic in trying to make an OBJECTIVE assessment…
Themis: “A judge is supposed to be an impartial person in the court room. There should never be an instance where a judge raises his voice at anybody in any circumstance in his court room.”
This is unrealistic…
Your words are what the reader is basing his/her opinion of what happened on, and if there was any misconduct. If you are introducing hyperbole into the equation, that becomes very problematic in trying to make an OBJECTIVE assessment…
ERM
Did you miss the very first line of the story? – “Judge Mock explodes in anger at Defense…..”. To me that line indicates the Judge went over the top and the sound of words spoken went beyond “raising his voice”. You seem to be indicating the writer is changing the nature of the incident as more details are discussed – I do not see that at all.
My intern reminded me last night there was a point where Mock rose to his feet, lean over the bench, and yelled, “I said sustained.”
[quote]You are taking David’s word for it that there was misconduct??? [/quote]
I didn’t use the term misconduct, I think his conduct was inappropriate. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can weigh Druliner’s word against the response from Judge Mock where he acknowledged he raised his voice and use your own judgment as to whether that was appropriate.
Themis: “A judge is supposed to be an impartial person in the court room. There should never be an instance where a judge raises his voice at anybody in any circumstance in his court room.”
This is unrealistic…
Would you say that about a teacher in a classroom?
OK, I am the attorney that made the record. I have practiced law for 20 years, as a deputy district attorney, a defense attorney and an appellate attorney. I graduated in the top 3% of my class from McGeorge School of Law in 1990. I was nominated by the Faculty and voted in to the Who’s Who Among Students in American Universities & Colleges (under the name of Kathryn Kohlman). I was also awarded the Outstanding Graduating Senior Award by the McGeorge Faculty and Graduated Order of the Coif. I received the Am Jur award for Constitutional Law and Evidence (this is the highest grade for the 100 students in the class). I know what I am doing.
I also know that it is unethical to criticize a judicial officer off the record so I will not and did not do that.
Nora Oldwin was absolutely correct in her comments about why I had to object to preserve issues for appeal. If I had not, the appeallate court would deem very proper objections waived.
And lest there be any confusion, the Deputy District Attorney objected about 30x more than I did — at least. I have never seen or heard of any Deputy District Attorney who worked so hard to keep evidence out. She objected approximately 15 times during my opening statement alone. I was there; the record will reflect all of this to be true.
It struck accord with me on how similar Judge Mock’s behavior towards the defense attorney in this trial was to Judge Falls behavior towards defense in the Ajay Dev trial. I attended Mr. Devs trial for 4 weeks and was shocked that a Judge would be allowed to speak so harshly to the defense attorney or any attorney for that matter. Someone mentioned that if the Judge spoke harshly towards the defense it would be in the transcript. Well the words the Judge said would be in the transcript, however the emotion on how those words were said will not be. And the tone of a person’s voice says a lot. Not only is it unethical for a person with this type of responsibility to act, it can also influence the jury to think that the defense has acted in an inappropriate manner. All of us have our opinions, but guess what, they don’t matter! What matters is there’s a code of ethics that must be adhered to and it is not! It is as simple as that. What is not simple is the enforcement of those ethics. And therein lies the issue, individuals who conduct themselves in their responsible position as if they are above the law. This has become a very disturbing trend within the Yolo County judicial system.