Sideshow Continues in Murder Trial; Chief Justice Called in To Help

California’s Chief Justice Ronald George has been asked to intervene in the Yolo Superior Court’s handling of the case against a man who has been accused of killing a Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy. Justice George will appoint an outside judge who will then rule on the motion to disqualify every Yolo County Judge from hearing the case.

Three Judges have already disqualified themselves two because they had worked with the Sheriff’s Deputy in past employment and the third because as Judge, they had ruled on a family law issue involving the defendant.

The other seven refused to disqualify themselves and Judge Rosenberg ruled that he had no power to remove those judges and he refused to disqualify himself.

He is quoted in the Sacramento Bee saying:

“It would be easy to disqualify myself with the stroke of a pen… There being no good reasons to disqualify, I decline to disqualify myself from hearing this case.”

Judge Rosenberg then apparently read aloud his entire nine page ruling into court where he criticized bailiffs and sheriff’s deputies for their decision to prevent access to the June 18 arraignment.

The Sacramento Bee continues:

The judge said he had not known the outer doors of the court building were locked until after the hearing was over.

Deputies had made a “unilateral decision to prevent access” to the public and the suspect’s family, while allowing fellow officers and the victim’s family to enter through side doors, he said.

He said a judge would have to be “downright stupid” to “sanction, condone, or collude with other judges to actually bar the press and the public from an arraignment courtroom.”

A former Yolo County supervisor and state political figure, Rosenberg said he had been accused of many things during his public career. But, “I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being stupid,” he said.

Sacramento News 10 quotes Judge Rosenberg:

“The public and the press should never be barred from a criminal hearing or trial because of a locked door,” said Rosenberg.

Responding to defense allegations that Rosenberg and other judges delayed their June 18 caseloads to allow their bailiff to attend Topete’s arraignment, Rosenberg said, “… there is not a scintilla of evidence presented that I knew other departments were doing so, nor that I and any other judge ‘colluded’ to close our departments…”

Dean Johansson the public defender then apparently objected to the entire filing being read into the record.

“That was a political speech.”

To which the Judge responded:

“One could say it’s a political (defense) motion. The motion has attacked the integrity of the entire bench.”

Commentary

Basically what has happened to this point is that three Judges have disqualified themselves who have direct past dealings with either victim or the defendant. The grounds for getting the other seven disqualified seem rather steep at this point, although having Justice George intervene to name a judge to rule on the remainder of the motion is rather unusual.

I remain at a loss here as to the defense strategy. I do not understand why they want to remove the judges but keep the case in Yolo County where they would still have to deal with the sheriff’s department.

That said, I think bringing in outside help is a good idea at this point. At the very least, fresh and hopefully unbiased eyes can take a look at the motion and make the key determination–can this guy get a fair trial. Personally I do not think he can get a fair trial at this point in Yolo County.

One can probably find a jury that has not heard about this case–although I always have to wonder about such juries that do not follow the news at all. But I have to question whether the Sheriff’s Department can do their job in a professional way after what we have seen to date.

One can probably criticize Judge Rosenberg for reading his nine page ruling. But I also commend him for asking for outside help here.

At this point it appears that the charges have not been read to the accused. This is an integral part of the criminal justice system where the accused has the right to get the charges read against him in a public hearing that ensures that the state is not merely charging him in an ad hoc or secretive fashion. It is what separates our legal system from those in tyrannical countries.

This episode has become a tremendous sideshow. And it does a disservice to the memory of the fallen Sheriff’s deputy and his family. As such, we would like to see a quick resolution of these side issues so that the main trial can move forward and the defendant can hear the charges read against him.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

situs togel
situs toto
rimbatoto
situs togel
rimbatoto
situs toto
rimbatoto
bo togel
rimbatoto
situs togel
rimbatoto
situs toto
rimbatoto
situs toto
rimbatoto
bo toto
rimbatoto
rimbatoto
rimbatoto
rimbatoto
rimbatoto
rimba toto
rimbatoto
rimbatoto

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

84 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    You quote Bee as saying Judge Rosenberg said “Sheriff’s made unilateral decision to bar….”.
    I thought at least at first that everyone maintained it was an oversight, an error that the doors were not unlocked….?? change of tune?

  2. Anonymous

    You quote Bee as saying Judge Rosenberg said “Sheriff’s made unilateral decision to bar….”.
    I thought at least at first that everyone maintained it was an oversight, an error that the doors were not unlocked….?? change of tune?

  3. Anonymous

    You quote Bee as saying Judge Rosenberg said “Sheriff’s made unilateral decision to bar….”.
    I thought at least at first that everyone maintained it was an oversight, an error that the doors were not unlocked….?? change of tune?

  4. Anonymous

    You quote Bee as saying Judge Rosenberg said “Sheriff’s made unilateral decision to bar….”.
    I thought at least at first that everyone maintained it was an oversight, an error that the doors were not unlocked….?? change of tune?

  5. Anonymous

    It was inevitable that Dave Rosenberg would “politicize” this issue. Remember when he attempted to intervene in the selection of Davis’ Police Chief while sitting on the Yolo bench? Those who have followed Dave Rosenberg’s political career, from the Davis City Council to being a major fund-raiser for (and “midnight” judicial appointee of) former governor Gray Davis understand that he is just constitutionally(no pun intended) incapable of doing otherwise.

  6. Anonymous

    It was inevitable that Dave Rosenberg would “politicize” this issue. Remember when he attempted to intervene in the selection of Davis’ Police Chief while sitting on the Yolo bench? Those who have followed Dave Rosenberg’s political career, from the Davis City Council to being a major fund-raiser for (and “midnight” judicial appointee of) former governor Gray Davis understand that he is just constitutionally(no pun intended) incapable of doing otherwise.

  7. Anonymous

    It was inevitable that Dave Rosenberg would “politicize” this issue. Remember when he attempted to intervene in the selection of Davis’ Police Chief while sitting on the Yolo bench? Those who have followed Dave Rosenberg’s political career, from the Davis City Council to being a major fund-raiser for (and “midnight” judicial appointee of) former governor Gray Davis understand that he is just constitutionally(no pun intended) incapable of doing otherwise.

  8. Anonymous

    It was inevitable that Dave Rosenberg would “politicize” this issue. Remember when he attempted to intervene in the selection of Davis’ Police Chief while sitting on the Yolo bench? Those who have followed Dave Rosenberg’s political career, from the Davis City Council to being a major fund-raiser for (and “midnight” judicial appointee of) former governor Gray Davis understand that he is just constitutionally(no pun intended) incapable of doing otherwise.

  9. Anonymous

    “He said a judge would have to be “downright stupid” to “sanction, condone, or collude with other judges to actually bar the press and the public from an arraignment courtroom.”

    Judge Rosenberg attemtps to set up a classic “straw-man” accusation in order to then knock it down. I do not believe that any other Judge(perhaps other than the Commissioner handling the arraignment)is being accused of being directly involved
    in barring the press or public. What they apparently did do was close their own courtrooms down without cause during this arraignment.

  10. Anonymous

    “He said a judge would have to be “downright stupid” to “sanction, condone, or collude with other judges to actually bar the press and the public from an arraignment courtroom.”

    Judge Rosenberg attemtps to set up a classic “straw-man” accusation in order to then knock it down. I do not believe that any other Judge(perhaps other than the Commissioner handling the arraignment)is being accused of being directly involved
    in barring the press or public. What they apparently did do was close their own courtrooms down without cause during this arraignment.

  11. Anonymous

    “He said a judge would have to be “downright stupid” to “sanction, condone, or collude with other judges to actually bar the press and the public from an arraignment courtroom.”

    Judge Rosenberg attemtps to set up a classic “straw-man” accusation in order to then knock it down. I do not believe that any other Judge(perhaps other than the Commissioner handling the arraignment)is being accused of being directly involved
    in barring the press or public. What they apparently did do was close their own courtrooms down without cause during this arraignment.

  12. Anonymous

    “He said a judge would have to be “downright stupid” to “sanction, condone, or collude with other judges to actually bar the press and the public from an arraignment courtroom.”

    Judge Rosenberg attemtps to set up a classic “straw-man” accusation in order to then knock it down. I do not believe that any other Judge(perhaps other than the Commissioner handling the arraignment)is being accused of being directly involved
    in barring the press or public. What they apparently did do was close their own courtrooms down without cause during this arraignment.

  13. Disgusted member of the bar

    Don’t be fooled into thinking Rosenberg necessarly requested the state to intervene. I suspect the state became interested when most likely the defense alerted higher authorities. If I am not mistaken, the state was already looking at this case before the Chief Justice decided to step in. It is not necessarily the case that Rosenberg asked the Chief Justice to intervene, but that the Chief Justice upon defense request has intervened because of the serious nature of the irregularities. It does not surprise me that Rosenberg might make it look as if he had personally requested the intervention of the Chief Justice, or did actually ask the Chief Justice if they are on friendly terms and Rosenberg wanted to avoid further state scrutiny.

    However, let me give fair warning – the legal profession is known for protecting its own, just like law enforcement. Don’t necessarily expect justice to be done by the Chief Justice of the state (pardon the pun). If there is any way the Chief Justice can weasel his way out of making the hard choices, he will do it rather than impugn a presiding county judge.

    That said, it is clear a huge constitutional mistake was made, that will cloud this case indefinitely. I find it curious the county court/DA is completely unwilling to let go of it for the greater good of everyone (including themselves and the victim’s family). Complete arrogance comes to mind. To take the chance this conviction could be overturned on appeal is not worth the risk involved. Why not change venue sooner than later?

    Judge Rosenberg protests too much methinks, as Shakespeare would say. If he doesn’t want to be labled stupid, then for heaven’s sake get rid of a hot potato with all due dispatch. It is for the good of the Yolo County Court, the victim’s family and the community at large.

  14. Disgusted member of the bar

    Don’t be fooled into thinking Rosenberg necessarly requested the state to intervene. I suspect the state became interested when most likely the defense alerted higher authorities. If I am not mistaken, the state was already looking at this case before the Chief Justice decided to step in. It is not necessarily the case that Rosenberg asked the Chief Justice to intervene, but that the Chief Justice upon defense request has intervened because of the serious nature of the irregularities. It does not surprise me that Rosenberg might make it look as if he had personally requested the intervention of the Chief Justice, or did actually ask the Chief Justice if they are on friendly terms and Rosenberg wanted to avoid further state scrutiny.

    However, let me give fair warning – the legal profession is known for protecting its own, just like law enforcement. Don’t necessarily expect justice to be done by the Chief Justice of the state (pardon the pun). If there is any way the Chief Justice can weasel his way out of making the hard choices, he will do it rather than impugn a presiding county judge.

    That said, it is clear a huge constitutional mistake was made, that will cloud this case indefinitely. I find it curious the county court/DA is completely unwilling to let go of it for the greater good of everyone (including themselves and the victim’s family). Complete arrogance comes to mind. To take the chance this conviction could be overturned on appeal is not worth the risk involved. Why not change venue sooner than later?

    Judge Rosenberg protests too much methinks, as Shakespeare would say. If he doesn’t want to be labled stupid, then for heaven’s sake get rid of a hot potato with all due dispatch. It is for the good of the Yolo County Court, the victim’s family and the community at large.

  15. Disgusted member of the bar

    Don’t be fooled into thinking Rosenberg necessarly requested the state to intervene. I suspect the state became interested when most likely the defense alerted higher authorities. If I am not mistaken, the state was already looking at this case before the Chief Justice decided to step in. It is not necessarily the case that Rosenberg asked the Chief Justice to intervene, but that the Chief Justice upon defense request has intervened because of the serious nature of the irregularities. It does not surprise me that Rosenberg might make it look as if he had personally requested the intervention of the Chief Justice, or did actually ask the Chief Justice if they are on friendly terms and Rosenberg wanted to avoid further state scrutiny.

    However, let me give fair warning – the legal profession is known for protecting its own, just like law enforcement. Don’t necessarily expect justice to be done by the Chief Justice of the state (pardon the pun). If there is any way the Chief Justice can weasel his way out of making the hard choices, he will do it rather than impugn a presiding county judge.

    That said, it is clear a huge constitutional mistake was made, that will cloud this case indefinitely. I find it curious the county court/DA is completely unwilling to let go of it for the greater good of everyone (including themselves and the victim’s family). Complete arrogance comes to mind. To take the chance this conviction could be overturned on appeal is not worth the risk involved. Why not change venue sooner than later?

    Judge Rosenberg protests too much methinks, as Shakespeare would say. If he doesn’t want to be labled stupid, then for heaven’s sake get rid of a hot potato with all due dispatch. It is for the good of the Yolo County Court, the victim’s family and the community at large.

  16. Disgusted member of the bar

    Don’t be fooled into thinking Rosenberg necessarly requested the state to intervene. I suspect the state became interested when most likely the defense alerted higher authorities. If I am not mistaken, the state was already looking at this case before the Chief Justice decided to step in. It is not necessarily the case that Rosenberg asked the Chief Justice to intervene, but that the Chief Justice upon defense request has intervened because of the serious nature of the irregularities. It does not surprise me that Rosenberg might make it look as if he had personally requested the intervention of the Chief Justice, or did actually ask the Chief Justice if they are on friendly terms and Rosenberg wanted to avoid further state scrutiny.

    However, let me give fair warning – the legal profession is known for protecting its own, just like law enforcement. Don’t necessarily expect justice to be done by the Chief Justice of the state (pardon the pun). If there is any way the Chief Justice can weasel his way out of making the hard choices, he will do it rather than impugn a presiding county judge.

    That said, it is clear a huge constitutional mistake was made, that will cloud this case indefinitely. I find it curious the county court/DA is completely unwilling to let go of it for the greater good of everyone (including themselves and the victim’s family). Complete arrogance comes to mind. To take the chance this conviction could be overturned on appeal is not worth the risk involved. Why not change venue sooner than later?

    Judge Rosenberg protests too much methinks, as Shakespeare would say. If he doesn’t want to be labled stupid, then for heaven’s sake get rid of a hot potato with all due dispatch. It is for the good of the Yolo County Court, the victim’s family and the community at large.

  17. Anonymous

    “But, “I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being stupid,” he said.”

    THIS is classic Rosenberg. It’s all about ME-ME-ME. Someone should take him aside and remind him that he’s now a Judge, not a wheeler-dealer politician with an overinflated ego.

  18. Anonymous

    “But, “I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being stupid,” he said.”

    THIS is classic Rosenberg. It’s all about ME-ME-ME. Someone should take him aside and remind him that he’s now a Judge, not a wheeler-dealer politician with an overinflated ego.

  19. Anonymous

    “But, “I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being stupid,” he said.”

    THIS is classic Rosenberg. It’s all about ME-ME-ME. Someone should take him aside and remind him that he’s now a Judge, not a wheeler-dealer politician with an overinflated ego.

  20. Anonymous

    “But, “I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being stupid,” he said.”

    THIS is classic Rosenberg. It’s all about ME-ME-ME. Someone should take him aside and remind him that he’s now a Judge, not a wheeler-dealer politician with an overinflated ego.

  21. Anonymous

    I don’t believe for an instant that the Judges colluded to fill Dept 9 during the arraignment. What would be the motive for them to do so?

    I don’t believe that this guy has any chance of getting a judge that is any better than the Yolo County Judges. It may look better to have someone from another county come in, but I don’t think that it will change the outcome one way or another.

    I think that some of you are forgetting who the bad guy is with this case. Topete deserves a fair trial, but that is all.

  22. Anonymous

    I don’t believe for an instant that the Judges colluded to fill Dept 9 during the arraignment. What would be the motive for them to do so?

    I don’t believe that this guy has any chance of getting a judge that is any better than the Yolo County Judges. It may look better to have someone from another county come in, but I don’t think that it will change the outcome one way or another.

    I think that some of you are forgetting who the bad guy is with this case. Topete deserves a fair trial, but that is all.

  23. Anonymous

    I don’t believe for an instant that the Judges colluded to fill Dept 9 during the arraignment. What would be the motive for them to do so?

    I don’t believe that this guy has any chance of getting a judge that is any better than the Yolo County Judges. It may look better to have someone from another county come in, but I don’t think that it will change the outcome one way or another.

    I think that some of you are forgetting who the bad guy is with this case. Topete deserves a fair trial, but that is all.

  24. Anonymous

    I don’t believe for an instant that the Judges colluded to fill Dept 9 during the arraignment. What would be the motive for them to do so?

    I don’t believe that this guy has any chance of getting a judge that is any better than the Yolo County Judges. It may look better to have someone from another county come in, but I don’t think that it will change the outcome one way or another.

    I think that some of you are forgetting who the bad guy is with this case. Topete deserves a fair trial, but that is all.

  25. Doug Paul Davis

    None of us have forgotten that anonymous, in every single one of my articles I have mentioned that this is a distraction from the central issue. Unfortunately they are making it that way. I tend to agree that there was not collusion there, will changing to an out of county Judge make a difference? Probably not. I would be asking for a change of venue.

  26. Doug Paul Davis

    None of us have forgotten that anonymous, in every single one of my articles I have mentioned that this is a distraction from the central issue. Unfortunately they are making it that way. I tend to agree that there was not collusion there, will changing to an out of county Judge make a difference? Probably not. I would be asking for a change of venue.

  27. Doug Paul Davis

    None of us have forgotten that anonymous, in every single one of my articles I have mentioned that this is a distraction from the central issue. Unfortunately they are making it that way. I tend to agree that there was not collusion there, will changing to an out of county Judge make a difference? Probably not. I would be asking for a change of venue.

  28. Doug Paul Davis

    None of us have forgotten that anonymous, in every single one of my articles I have mentioned that this is a distraction from the central issue. Unfortunately they are making it that way. I tend to agree that there was not collusion there, will changing to an out of county Judge make a difference? Probably not. I would be asking for a change of venue.

  29. watching the yolo circus

    anonymous 7:35,

    We are not forgetting the seriousness of the case. A man killed another man who has a family. He had a child in the back of his car while speeding to avoid law enforcement.

    Nevertheless, Topete deserves a fair trial. It WILL NOT HAPPEN IN YOLO COUNTY. This case needs to be moved out of Yolo. It is the right thing to do. If this is not done Yolo County will continue to be the laughing stock of the courts in California.

    As for Judge Dave Rosenberg he was definitely grandstanding and giving a political speech. I was glad to see that Dean Johansson called it for what it was. Dean is a smart man with integrity and Yolo is lucky to have him.

    Another person already quoted Shakespeare, but remember for Rosenberg, “All the world’s a stage.”

  30. watching the yolo circus

    anonymous 7:35,

    We are not forgetting the seriousness of the case. A man killed another man who has a family. He had a child in the back of his car while speeding to avoid law enforcement.

    Nevertheless, Topete deserves a fair trial. It WILL NOT HAPPEN IN YOLO COUNTY. This case needs to be moved out of Yolo. It is the right thing to do. If this is not done Yolo County will continue to be the laughing stock of the courts in California.

    As for Judge Dave Rosenberg he was definitely grandstanding and giving a political speech. I was glad to see that Dean Johansson called it for what it was. Dean is a smart man with integrity and Yolo is lucky to have him.

    Another person already quoted Shakespeare, but remember for Rosenberg, “All the world’s a stage.”

  31. watching the yolo circus

    anonymous 7:35,

    We are not forgetting the seriousness of the case. A man killed another man who has a family. He had a child in the back of his car while speeding to avoid law enforcement.

    Nevertheless, Topete deserves a fair trial. It WILL NOT HAPPEN IN YOLO COUNTY. This case needs to be moved out of Yolo. It is the right thing to do. If this is not done Yolo County will continue to be the laughing stock of the courts in California.

    As for Judge Dave Rosenberg he was definitely grandstanding and giving a political speech. I was glad to see that Dean Johansson called it for what it was. Dean is a smart man with integrity and Yolo is lucky to have him.

    Another person already quoted Shakespeare, but remember for Rosenberg, “All the world’s a stage.”

  32. watching the yolo circus

    anonymous 7:35,

    We are not forgetting the seriousness of the case. A man killed another man who has a family. He had a child in the back of his car while speeding to avoid law enforcement.

    Nevertheless, Topete deserves a fair trial. It WILL NOT HAPPEN IN YOLO COUNTY. This case needs to be moved out of Yolo. It is the right thing to do. If this is not done Yolo County will continue to be the laughing stock of the courts in California.

    As for Judge Dave Rosenberg he was definitely grandstanding and giving a political speech. I was glad to see that Dean Johansson called it for what it was. Dean is a smart man with integrity and Yolo is lucky to have him.

    Another person already quoted Shakespeare, but remember for Rosenberg, “All the world’s a stage.”

  33. Mike Harrington

    As to venue, for all we know there is a lot of haggling already going on between the prosecutors and defense counsel as to WHICH county would be a mutually agreeable venue for the remainder of the case. Yolo County has to move this case, the only issue being where. The victim was employed by the County, and worked for some time in the courthouse with the judges. So look for a deal to be announced, is my best guess, or at least an agreement that it has to be moved. Then watch the battle as to which court takes the case.

    I personally have no doubt that Yolo County could give the defendant a fair trial. However, the Court has to eliminate the APPEARANCE of conflict. Especially given the identity of the victim.

  34. Mike Harrington

    As to venue, for all we know there is a lot of haggling already going on between the prosecutors and defense counsel as to WHICH county would be a mutually agreeable venue for the remainder of the case. Yolo County has to move this case, the only issue being where. The victim was employed by the County, and worked for some time in the courthouse with the judges. So look for a deal to be announced, is my best guess, or at least an agreement that it has to be moved. Then watch the battle as to which court takes the case.

    I personally have no doubt that Yolo County could give the defendant a fair trial. However, the Court has to eliminate the APPEARANCE of conflict. Especially given the identity of the victim.

  35. Mike Harrington

    As to venue, for all we know there is a lot of haggling already going on between the prosecutors and defense counsel as to WHICH county would be a mutually agreeable venue for the remainder of the case. Yolo County has to move this case, the only issue being where. The victim was employed by the County, and worked for some time in the courthouse with the judges. So look for a deal to be announced, is my best guess, or at least an agreement that it has to be moved. Then watch the battle as to which court takes the case.

    I personally have no doubt that Yolo County could give the defendant a fair trial. However, the Court has to eliminate the APPEARANCE of conflict. Especially given the identity of the victim.

  36. Mike Harrington

    As to venue, for all we know there is a lot of haggling already going on between the prosecutors and defense counsel as to WHICH county would be a mutually agreeable venue for the remainder of the case. Yolo County has to move this case, the only issue being where. The victim was employed by the County, and worked for some time in the courthouse with the judges. So look for a deal to be announced, is my best guess, or at least an agreement that it has to be moved. Then watch the battle as to which court takes the case.

    I personally have no doubt that Yolo County could give the defendant a fair trial. However, the Court has to eliminate the APPEARANCE of conflict. Especially given the identity of the victim.

  37. Anonymous

    I agree tthat topete should a fair trial. And after that,given the state of calif’s record, 22 years. the worthless mexican gang banger can get executed. Another zero your kids and mine will pay for.

  38. Anonymous

    I agree tthat topete should a fair trial. And after that,given the state of calif’s record, 22 years. the worthless mexican gang banger can get executed. Another zero your kids and mine will pay for.

  39. Anonymous

    I agree tthat topete should a fair trial. And after that,given the state of calif’s record, 22 years. the worthless mexican gang banger can get executed. Another zero your kids and mine will pay for.

  40. Anonymous

    I agree tthat topete should a fair trial. And after that,given the state of calif’s record, 22 years. the worthless mexican gang banger can get executed. Another zero your kids and mine will pay for.

  41. Disgusted YC Resident

    California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true:
    6) (A) For any reason:
    (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a
    doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

    California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c)(5)
    A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not
    pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed
    by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a
    selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible.
    No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be
    made against the judge selected to decide the question of
    disqualification.

    “Moi, je suis l’etat” is the attitude here. Even after all this, Rosenberg see himself as above the law. It’s not good enough for him to follow the procedure set forth in the law that is good enough for everyone else. He is his own law, and he wants to rewrite the California Code of Civil Procedure to change the standard for recusal from the objective standard that a person could reasonably doubt his impartiality to require proof that he and the other judges are in fact not impartial. Good luck proving that without a spy camera and a wiretap! Rosenberg also doesn’t want to follow the law requiring the Judicial Council to appoint an independent judge. No, he hopes to use political juice by having Ronald George personally appoint someone, maybe with a wink about the ruling that Ronald George expects from him. Following the law is not good enough for Rosenberg and the rest of the corrupt Yolo County judges. God help all of us in this county should any one of us face this type of judicial arrogance. Judicial Performance Commission, step in and step up!

  42. Disgusted YC Resident

    California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true:
    6) (A) For any reason:
    (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a
    doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

    California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c)(5)
    A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not
    pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed
    by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a
    selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible.
    No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be
    made against the judge selected to decide the question of
    disqualification.

    “Moi, je suis l’etat” is the attitude here. Even after all this, Rosenberg see himself as above the law. It’s not good enough for him to follow the procedure set forth in the law that is good enough for everyone else. He is his own law, and he wants to rewrite the California Code of Civil Procedure to change the standard for recusal from the objective standard that a person could reasonably doubt his impartiality to require proof that he and the other judges are in fact not impartial. Good luck proving that without a spy camera and a wiretap! Rosenberg also doesn’t want to follow the law requiring the Judicial Council to appoint an independent judge. No, he hopes to use political juice by having Ronald George personally appoint someone, maybe with a wink about the ruling that Ronald George expects from him. Following the law is not good enough for Rosenberg and the rest of the corrupt Yolo County judges. God help all of us in this county should any one of us face this type of judicial arrogance. Judicial Performance Commission, step in and step up!

  43. Disgusted YC Resident

    California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true:
    6) (A) For any reason:
    (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a
    doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

    California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c)(5)
    A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not
    pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed
    by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a
    selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible.
    No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be
    made against the judge selected to decide the question of
    disqualification.

    “Moi, je suis l’etat” is the attitude here. Even after all this, Rosenberg see himself as above the law. It’s not good enough for him to follow the procedure set forth in the law that is good enough for everyone else. He is his own law, and he wants to rewrite the California Code of Civil Procedure to change the standard for recusal from the objective standard that a person could reasonably doubt his impartiality to require proof that he and the other judges are in fact not impartial. Good luck proving that without a spy camera and a wiretap! Rosenberg also doesn’t want to follow the law requiring the Judicial Council to appoint an independent judge. No, he hopes to use political juice by having Ronald George personally appoint someone, maybe with a wink about the ruling that Ronald George expects from him. Following the law is not good enough for Rosenberg and the rest of the corrupt Yolo County judges. God help all of us in this county should any one of us face this type of judicial arrogance. Judicial Performance Commission, step in and step up!

  44. Disgusted YC Resident

    California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true:
    6) (A) For any reason:
    (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a
    doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

    California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c)(5)
    A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not
    pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed
    by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a
    selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible.
    No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be
    made against the judge selected to decide the question of
    disqualification.

    “Moi, je suis l’etat” is the attitude here. Even after all this, Rosenberg see himself as above the law. It’s not good enough for him to follow the procedure set forth in the law that is good enough for everyone else. He is his own law, and he wants to rewrite the California Code of Civil Procedure to change the standard for recusal from the objective standard that a person could reasonably doubt his impartiality to require proof that he and the other judges are in fact not impartial. Good luck proving that without a spy camera and a wiretap! Rosenberg also doesn’t want to follow the law requiring the Judicial Council to appoint an independent judge. No, he hopes to use political juice by having Ronald George personally appoint someone, maybe with a wink about the ruling that Ronald George expects from him. Following the law is not good enough for Rosenberg and the rest of the corrupt Yolo County judges. God help all of us in this county should any one of us face this type of judicial arrogance. Judicial Performance Commission, step in and step up!

  45. Disgusted Member of the Bar

    “I don’t believe that this guy has any chance of getting a judge that is any better than the Yolo County Judges. It may look better to have someone from another county come in, but I don’t think that it will change the outcome one way or another.”

    None of us necessarily thinks the outcome of a trial would be any different in another county. The problem is that Rosenberg et al have handed the defense an issue for an appeal. This could not only slow up the process, but could potentially allow for the overturning of any conviction on appeal. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, venue has to be changed, since evidence can clearly show this man cannot get a fair trial in this county.

    As for collusion, which tends to have a negative connotation, in the legal sense is probably quite accurate. I suspect the judges did all agree to close their courts to give the bailiffs the opportunity to attend the arraignment – which might have been OK if such a plan had not denied the defendent a right to a public arraignment. A constitutionally protected right.

  46. Disgusted Member of the Bar

    “I don’t believe that this guy has any chance of getting a judge that is any better than the Yolo County Judges. It may look better to have someone from another county come in, but I don’t think that it will change the outcome one way or another.”

    None of us necessarily thinks the outcome of a trial would be any different in another county. The problem is that Rosenberg et al have handed the defense an issue for an appeal. This could not only slow up the process, but could potentially allow for the overturning of any conviction on appeal. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, venue has to be changed, since evidence can clearly show this man cannot get a fair trial in this county.

    As for collusion, which tends to have a negative connotation, in the legal sense is probably quite accurate. I suspect the judges did all agree to close their courts to give the bailiffs the opportunity to attend the arraignment – which might have been OK if such a plan had not denied the defendent a right to a public arraignment. A constitutionally protected right.

  47. Disgusted Member of the Bar

    “I don’t believe that this guy has any chance of getting a judge that is any better than the Yolo County Judges. It may look better to have someone from another county come in, but I don’t think that it will change the outcome one way or another.”

    None of us necessarily thinks the outcome of a trial would be any different in another county. The problem is that Rosenberg et al have handed the defense an issue for an appeal. This could not only slow up the process, but could potentially allow for the overturning of any conviction on appeal. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, venue has to be changed, since evidence can clearly show this man cannot get a fair trial in this county.

    As for collusion, which tends to have a negative connotation, in the legal sense is probably quite accurate. I suspect the judges did all agree to close their courts to give the bailiffs the opportunity to attend the arraignment – which might have been OK if such a plan had not denied the defendent a right to a public arraignment. A constitutionally protected right.

  48. Disgusted Member of the Bar

    “I don’t believe that this guy has any chance of getting a judge that is any better than the Yolo County Judges. It may look better to have someone from another county come in, but I don’t think that it will change the outcome one way or another.”

    None of us necessarily thinks the outcome of a trial would be any different in another county. The problem is that Rosenberg et al have handed the defense an issue for an appeal. This could not only slow up the process, but could potentially allow for the overturning of any conviction on appeal. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, venue has to be changed, since evidence can clearly show this man cannot get a fair trial in this county.

    As for collusion, which tends to have a negative connotation, in the legal sense is probably quite accurate. I suspect the judges did all agree to close their courts to give the bailiffs the opportunity to attend the arraignment – which might have been OK if such a plan had not denied the defendent a right to a public arraignment. A constitutionally protected right.

  49. Anonymous

    It is not just that the defendant was denied a public arraignment that is the issue, but also that the defendant has been denied a fair trial and due process of law because he and his family, supporters and any potential witnesses in his favor have been subjected to public intimidation by law enforcement and the court. The judges and sheriffs sent a clear message of intimidation through their acts.

  50. Anonymous

    It is not just that the defendant was denied a public arraignment that is the issue, but also that the defendant has been denied a fair trial and due process of law because he and his family, supporters and any potential witnesses in his favor have been subjected to public intimidation by law enforcement and the court. The judges and sheriffs sent a clear message of intimidation through their acts.

  51. Anonymous

    It is not just that the defendant was denied a public arraignment that is the issue, but also that the defendant has been denied a fair trial and due process of law because he and his family, supporters and any potential witnesses in his favor have been subjected to public intimidation by law enforcement and the court. The judges and sheriffs sent a clear message of intimidation through their acts.

  52. Anonymous

    It is not just that the defendant was denied a public arraignment that is the issue, but also that the defendant has been denied a fair trial and due process of law because he and his family, supporters and any potential witnesses in his favor have been subjected to public intimidation by law enforcement and the court. The judges and sheriffs sent a clear message of intimidation through their acts.

  53. annonymous 7/5 7:35 PM

    Disgusted YC resident, I looks to me like Judge Rosenberg is following the code you referenced, so I don’t know what your beef is.

    I don’t believe that Rosenberg feels that he is above the law. I believe that he feels that he should be allowed its protections as well as its privileges.

    I do believe that in the end the trial will move and Yolo County will be obligated to pay an enormous sum of money to have the case tried in another county. Isn’t that how it works when a case moves?

  54. annonymous 7/5 7:35 PM

    Disgusted YC resident, I looks to me like Judge Rosenberg is following the code you referenced, so I don’t know what your beef is.

    I don’t believe that Rosenberg feels that he is above the law. I believe that he feels that he should be allowed its protections as well as its privileges.

    I do believe that in the end the trial will move and Yolo County will be obligated to pay an enormous sum of money to have the case tried in another county. Isn’t that how it works when a case moves?

  55. annonymous 7/5 7:35 PM

    Disgusted YC resident, I looks to me like Judge Rosenberg is following the code you referenced, so I don’t know what your beef is.

    I don’t believe that Rosenberg feels that he is above the law. I believe that he feels that he should be allowed its protections as well as its privileges.

    I do believe that in the end the trial will move and Yolo County will be obligated to pay an enormous sum of money to have the case tried in another county. Isn’t that how it works when a case moves?

  56. annonymous 7/5 7:35 PM

    Disgusted YC resident, I looks to me like Judge Rosenberg is following the code you referenced, so I don’t know what your beef is.

    I don’t believe that Rosenberg feels that he is above the law. I believe that he feels that he should be allowed its protections as well as its privileges.

    I do believe that in the end the trial will move and Yolo County will be obligated to pay an enormous sum of money to have the case tried in another county. Isn’t that how it works when a case moves?

  57. Anonymous

    Vincente,

    Being retired I have time to follow an interest, the law. In one particular session, I followed, mr. johansson lost his own personal case over a speeding ticket. Why did he lose? The court proved johansson to be a prevaricator.
    Therefore I do not believe johansson is intelligent and he certainly does not have any integrity.

  58. Anonymous

    Vincente,

    Being retired I have time to follow an interest, the law. In one particular session, I followed, mr. johansson lost his own personal case over a speeding ticket. Why did he lose? The court proved johansson to be a prevaricator.
    Therefore I do not believe johansson is intelligent and he certainly does not have any integrity.

  59. Anonymous

    Vincente,

    Being retired I have time to follow an interest, the law. In one particular session, I followed, mr. johansson lost his own personal case over a speeding ticket. Why did he lose? The court proved johansson to be a prevaricator.
    Therefore I do not believe johansson is intelligent and he certainly does not have any integrity.

  60. Anonymous

    Vincente,

    Being retired I have time to follow an interest, the law. In one particular session, I followed, mr. johansson lost his own personal case over a speeding ticket. Why did he lose? The court proved johansson to be a prevaricator.
    Therefore I do not believe johansson is intelligent and he certainly does not have any integrity.

  61. Anonymous

    to anonymous,

    if you are talking about the “speeding ticket” Mr. Johannsen received during a stop which he alleged was predicateed on police misconduct…that ticket was dismissed by the judge when the judge came to the conclusions that the officer’s version of events was impossible. In short, the judge disbelieved the police officer and the ticket was dismissed.

  62. Anonymous

    to anonymous,

    if you are talking about the “speeding ticket” Mr. Johannsen received during a stop which he alleged was predicateed on police misconduct…that ticket was dismissed by the judge when the judge came to the conclusions that the officer’s version of events was impossible. In short, the judge disbelieved the police officer and the ticket was dismissed.

  63. Anonymous

    to anonymous,

    if you are talking about the “speeding ticket” Mr. Johannsen received during a stop which he alleged was predicateed on police misconduct…that ticket was dismissed by the judge when the judge came to the conclusions that the officer’s version of events was impossible. In short, the judge disbelieved the police officer and the ticket was dismissed.

  64. Anonymous

    to anonymous,

    if you are talking about the “speeding ticket” Mr. Johannsen received during a stop which he alleged was predicateed on police misconduct…that ticket was dismissed by the judge when the judge came to the conclusions that the officer’s version of events was impossible. In short, the judge disbelieved the police officer and the ticket was dismissed.

  65. Anonymous

    The personal case I was talking about was correct. dean lost all the way around, as he should have. look it up, he lost his lawsuit for lying.

    marco topete, the loser gang banger, deserves the best defense the unfortunate taxpayers can buy. it sure as hell ain’t johansson, he is on the other end of the scale.

  66. Anonymous

    The personal case I was talking about was correct. dean lost all the way around, as he should have. look it up, he lost his lawsuit for lying.

    marco topete, the loser gang banger, deserves the best defense the unfortunate taxpayers can buy. it sure as hell ain’t johansson, he is on the other end of the scale.

  67. Anonymous

    The personal case I was talking about was correct. dean lost all the way around, as he should have. look it up, he lost his lawsuit for lying.

    marco topete, the loser gang banger, deserves the best defense the unfortunate taxpayers can buy. it sure as hell ain’t johansson, he is on the other end of the scale.

  68. Anonymous

    The personal case I was talking about was correct. dean lost all the way around, as he should have. look it up, he lost his lawsuit for lying.

    marco topete, the loser gang banger, deserves the best defense the unfortunate taxpayers can buy. it sure as hell ain’t johansson, he is on the other end of the scale.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for