By Pavan Potti
SACRAMENTO – Judge Kevin McCormick was put in an awkward position here Wednesday when a defendant—representing himself on a probation matter—clashed with the judge, frequently interrupting him in Sacramento County Superior Court, Dept. 15.
Despite the court’s attempts to stick to the hearing matter on hand, tension between the judge and defendant started to rise when it was evident that the two were keen on discussing completely different matters.
While the judge sought to address a violation of probation (VOP), the defendant was set on the issue of a preliminary hearing.
The defendant, Jesse James Rayburn, who had allegedly violated his probation by possessing both ammunition and a shotgun, physically appeared in court by himself. When Judge McCormick discussed how 
he planned on moving forward with the felony, the defendant wasn’t responsive.
Instead, Rayburn seemed keener on discussing why his case had moved from Dept. 62 over to 15 and how this would impact his case. The defendant claimed that he wasn’t able to find the court’s procedures as he couldn’t access procedures for statutory jurisdiction.
Additionally, the defendant also asked the judge if the court would be handling the case similar to that of an admiralty court, which the judge stated was a question he had never been asked in over 30 years on the bench.
As Judge McCormick was able to bring back the focus to the defendant violating his probation, the pro per defendant insisted he was defending himself because of a distrust of the court. He questioned the judge as to how the court could move his case when he hadn’t made an appeal yet.
“This is just thrust on me. I thought I was coming here for a preliminary hearing. You guys are switching up dates because you don’t like what I’m doing,” he stated.
Yet, Judge McCormick proceeded to explain to the defendant that there is no preliminary hearing for a motion of probation violation.
He asked the defendant, who told the court that the previous department handling his case had told him to prepare for a preliminary hearing, whether he was ready to move on with the matter.
The defendant answered by saying he didn’t know why he was even brought into court today, a claim which the judge treated with skepticism, considering that the defendant was present in court.
The judge ultimately decided to move the matter of a probation violation to Nov. 4, where the defendant as well as a witness police officer are both ordered to appear.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
