Rulings unwelcome to prosecutors

by Walter Olson on November 1, 2013

They appear to have gotten one very conservative San Diego judge exiled to traffic court [Will Baude]

{ 1 comment }

1 En Passant 11.01.13 at 3:36 pm

Seems to me there could be a much more effective way for the presiding judge (or whoever manages judges’ case assignments) to handle the coordinated prosecutorial peremptory challenges to Judge Kreep.

In California these peremptory challenges are a one-time “gimme” in each case. In any subsequent challenge in the case, the challenger must plead and prove actual prejudice with actual admissible evidence.

Cal. Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6(a)(3) provides in part:

… Except as provided in this section, no party or attorney shall be permitted to make more than one such motion in any one action or special proceeding pursuant to this section; …

So, faced with coordinated campaign of challenges from prosecutor’s office, the PJ simply assigns first any other judge besides Kreep to criminal cases. Then, if any other judge is challenged by prosecution, he assigns Judge Kreep to that case.

Essentially, the PJ could assign Kreep temporarily to any other department, so he could suddenly be made available as the second assigned judge in any criminal case where the first was challenged.

That way, any challenges to Kreep in the criminal court would be required to plead and prove actual prejudice.

I don’t know what local rules might affect a PJ’s ability to do that, but it would slow down any campaign of bogus challenges by prosecutors. It would also render other judges safe to make rulings that prosecutors don’t like.

Comments on this entry are closed.