Woman Represents Self, Accuses Judge of ‘Bias,’ Walks Out of Court for Third Time

By Michele Chadwick

MODESTO, CA – Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Valli Israels heard motions for a misdemeanor case late last week here—the accused represented herself and filed multiple motions including a motion for prosecutorial recusal.

(The accused is referred to as Jane Doe here because the Vanguard does not normally disclose names of those in misdemeanor cases).

In the end, the judge did not grant Jane Doe’s motions, and set a trial readiness hearing, despite Jane Doe walking out in the process after calling the judge “biased.”

When Judge Israels began, Jane Doe interrupted, claiming that she was denied her due process rights and said she has “obviously suffered tremendously due to these types of delays that are consistently allowed by the court.”

She added, “The reason why we are here on a recusal motion is because of these intentional due process violations and the fact that there is no disinterested prosecutor in this case. It is a maliciously brought frivolous felony case that they have moved for a first amended complaint based on the fact that they have no grounds and or standing in the case.”

Jane Doe then insisted that the court did not have jurisdiction over her case and refused a continuance because “[she will] never make a request for continuance in a case in which the court lacks jurisdiction.”

Judge Israels clarified, “I’ve already gone over the jurisdiction aspect. We’ve already made rulings on that.” The accused asked for clarification as to when that happened and the grounds for the jurisdiction.

Israels explained that she made the ruling in the last hearing. She clarified that the accused didn’t hear it “because you walked out of the room that time and I said I was going to make rulings and if you chose to leave, then I would assume that meant you didn’t want to be in the room.”

When Jane Doe continued to insist the court did not have jurisdiction, Judge Israels found the minute order and said the following aloud: “On Dec. 16, 2021, the court made several rulings and there is a minute order from that date. And it notes that at 2:10 p.m. you walked out of the courtroom before the proceedings were concluded. Before exiting the courtroom, the defendant was advised multiple times that the motions would be ruled on without her being present if she left the courtroom. And you did decide to leave the courtroom.”

After the reading, Jane Doe then claimed, “Without jurisdiction I am free to leave so that’s what I did.”

Judge Israels tried to discuss the motions filed when Jane Doe stood up suddenly and asked, “Why are there three bailiffs in this courtroom?”

The judge explained that “they [the bailiffs] are concerned if you are getting upset so they just want to ensure that everything stays orderly.” Jane Doe then claimed that “that’s threat of force. That’s not lawful.”

Jane Doe then refused to wear her mask. When Deputy District Attorney Sameer Shukla asked the judge to tell her to put it on, Jane Doe claimed the DA was “objecting to COVID” and went on a tangent about “Frank Souza, the two-strike felon, comes into court even though he had COVID and tries to hand me paperwork.”

Before Judge Israels could revisit the motions at hand, Jane Doe asked that the DA be sworn in. Israels explained that officers of the court are not sworn in. Later Jane Doe would claim that the DA “just perjured himself” and ”perjury is a crime and I am going to prove that he just lied.”

When Judge Israels clarified that the DA was making arguments and not perjuring, Jane Doe exclaimed, “So we allow the DA to lie in open court?”

Jane Doe tried to argue for a dismissal because “the district attorney refuses contact. They won’t give me an email address. They won’t give me discovery.”

When the judge asked DA Shukla for an explanation, the DDA said, “The refusal to give discovery keeps being made every time were here. I have with me every time, the packet of discovery. (Jane Doe) refuses to take it.”

Additionally, Jane Doe claimed, “There is a portion of the body cam footage that is missing. Gone. The portion that contains the false arrest… The body cam footage from Officer Louis Arroyo.”

When the judge asked DDA Shukla to explain, he said, “It’s been turned over. Well, it’s waiting to be turned over. She refuses to take it. It’s on evidence.com, the issue is that evidence.com requires a password. We will not send those passwords as a matter of policy through email. We give them through the phone. I had an investigator call (Jane Doe) and that call was recorded. And he [told] her ‘I’m here to give you the password over the phone’ and she refused to take it.”

In response, Jane Doe said, “They will not answer calls for me in regards to my missing child. They don’t accept calls. I don’t accept calls. It needs to be even.”

Judge Israels ordered the DDA to attempt calling Jane Doe within the next seven days regardless of whether she took the password.

Jane Doe then argued that “physical evidence had been tampered with,” referring to a blood sample. She claimed that the DDA hid the evidence until after the trial date and that the “[previous judge] would have been able to say ‘hey this blood was opened on 7/7/17 and wasn’t sent to the lab until 7/22 this blood is unreliable.’ It’s been tampered with clearly.”

The DDA responded, “The People have sent the blood to two different labs at (Jane Doe’s) request. They split the sample of the blood. There was a second request. That was fulfilled. Nothing has been destroyed. It is not a Trombetta issue. There’s been two blood splits so I ask that would be denied as well.”

Judge Israels denied Jane Doe’s dismissal motion, saying, “I don’t have any evidence supporting your conclusions. I don’t have any indication that this is true.”

Jane Doe became irritated and said, ““Play the videotapes. Let’s go to trial. It’s fraud, they know they don’t have a case.”

Jane Doe then began packing her belonging and Judge Israels said, “I’m going to keep ruling—if you want to leave you’re not going to be here for the rulings.”

Jane Doe retorted, “There’s no point (with) your bias and you’re allowing the prosecutor to control the court.”

The DDA then spoke saying, “Your Honor, this is the third time (Jane Doe) will be walking out of the courtroom. At this point, it’s open contempt of the process.”

Jane Doe is scheduled for a trial readiness hearing this week.

About The Author

Michele is a senior at UC Santa Barbara from Los Angles County.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

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