Extralegal Intercession by a Judge Unrelated to My Case

[Roger_]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California

Hello and thanks in advance for any help. I am a pro se appellant in a traffic matter. My appeal is based in two parts, one being trial errors in the case, and the second related to what I believe are the violation of my rights through intercession by a judge unrelated to my case. In my original trial, I later learned that it was the trial judge's first day hearing cases in that particular division. I later learned that it was policy that a new judge is monitored on at least his/her first day by an experienced judge present in the court during the new judge's the first day. After the (non-jury) trial (where I was found guilty), I left the courtroom and was engaged in conversation by a well-dressed individual. He had been present in the court and was curious about my name and local relatives as he had some relations with a family of the same name. After chatting for a while, I asked him if he was an attorney, and he said he was a judge. And it was then that I learned that he was the monitoring judge, and that it was the trial judge's first day on the job.

He complimented me on my defense, and to my surprise, noted that he thought the trial judge had made an error in the structuring of my sentence. He then said that he would be going back into the court to correct this. I did not understand the technical sentencing issue he alluded to. I don't think it was major, but it was significant. The US Constitution and California state statute (references omitted) provides that a defendant has the right to be present at every stage of his trial. I believe my rights were violated in the extralegal intercession of the monitoring judge who affected a change in my sentence after the fact and without my presence.

Normally, only evidence and arguments that were presented during the trial may be referenced in an appeal, but this extralegal intercession occurred outside of the trial. I am hoping that the appeals court may admit this extraordinary information, otherwise I may have to peruse an action against the city. Assuming that the appeals court will hear this information, here is my question:

What are the appropriate filings/procedures that I should follow in seeking at minimum, a written response to questions submitted to the monitoring judge regarding his intercession in the original case subsequent to sentencing? I know the questions, but because of the unusual nature of the situation, and the fact that he was not originally associated with the case, I don't know the appropriate procedures here. Do I subpoena the judge? Can one do that and how? I don't want to trouble him and bring him into court, I am really just seeking something more akin to written answers in a discovery process - but that seems odd too, given his lack of involvement with the original case. I wonder if a lawsuit against the city for violating my rights (lack of presence during sentencing, and the changing of sentencing after I exited the courtroom), with a remedy of reversing the judgement is in order, versus bringing this up in the appeal process.

I think the monitoring judge was sincerely trying to be helpful, but the method was technically a violation of procedure and my rights to be present during sentencing, and then also certainly, during a change in sentencing. If I can elicit a written response from the monitoring judge, who's name I have, I think he would be honest and acknowledge the encounter, and probably merely minimize the impact of his intercession, such as correcting a minor element in the sentence, and that would be OK. I will let the court decide whether an intercession of any kind regarding a change to the sentence however minor, without my presence, was violation of my rights, and a basis for reversing the judgement.

Your help and insight is appreciated.

[That Guy]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California

Hello and thanks in advance for any help. I am a pro se appellant in a traffic matter. My appeal is based in two parts, one being trial errors in the case, and the second related to what I believe are the violation of my rights through intercession by a judge unrelated to my case. In my original trial, I later learned that it was the trial judge's first day hearing cases in that particular division. I later learned that it was policy that a new judge is monitored on at least his/her first day by an experienced judge present in the court during the new judge's the first day. After the (non-jury) trial (where I was found guilty), I left the courtroom and was engaged in conversation by a well-dressed individual. He had been present in the court and was curious about my name and local relatives as he had some relations with a family of the same name. After chatting for a while, I asked him if he was an attorney, and he said he was a judge. And it was then that I learned that he was the monitoring judge, and that it was the trial judge's first day on the job.

He complimented me on my defense, and to my surprise, noted that he thought the trial judge had made an error in the structuring of my sentence. He then said that he would be going back into the court to correct this. I did not understand the technical sentencing issue he alluded to. I don't think it was major, but it was significant. The US Constitution and California state statute (references omitted) provides that a defendant has the right to be present at every stage of his trial. I believe my rights were violated in the extralegal intercession of the monitoring judge who affected a change in my sentence after the fact and without my presence.

Normally, only evidence and arguments that were presented during the trial may be referenced in an appeal, but this extralegal intercession occurred outside of the trial. I am hoping that the appeals court may admit this extraordinary information, otherwise I may have to peruse an action against the city. Assuming that the appeals court will hear this information, here is my question:

What are the appropriate filings/procedures that I should follow in seeking at minimum, a written response to questions submitted to the monitoring judge regarding his intercession in the original case subsequent to sentencing? I know the questions, but because of the unusual nature of the situation, and the fact that he was not originally associated with the case, I don't know the appropriate procedures here. Do I subpoena the judge? Can one do that and how? I don't want to trouble him and bring him into court, I am really just seeking something more akin to written answers in a discovery process - but that seems odd too, given his lack of involvement with the original case. I wonder if a lawsuit against the city for violating my rights (lack of presence during sentencing, and the changing of sentencing after I exited the courtroom), with a remedy of reversing the judgement is in order, versus bringing this up in the appeal process.

I think the monitoring judge was sincerely trying to be helpful, but the method was technically a violation of procedure and my rights to be present during sentencing, and then also certainly, during a change in sentencing. If I can elicit a written response from the monitoring judge, who's name I have, I think he would be honest and acknowledge the encounter, and probably merely minimize the impact of his intercession, such as correcting a minor element in the sentence, and that would be OK. I will let the court decide whether an intercession of any kind regarding a change to the sentence however minor, without my presence, was violation of my rights, and a basis for reversing the judgement.

Your help and insight is appreciated.

OK, first you stated:

the second related to what I believe are the violation of my rights through intercession by a judge unrelated to my case.

But then you later described how your rights were violated with you not being present during your sentencing and how you will be appealing.

So which is it? Was this related to your case or was it not related to your case?

That does raise one question, I'm sure you'll have to agree... The question is: Are you suggesting that this "monitor" attempted a good faith effort to correct an error committed by the trial judge only to end up committing an error of his own in the process? And who monitors him?

I've only mentioned that one bit there and I can think of ten or more questions about the details of the case and the sentence and how I couldn't even begin to provide a remotely reasonable or meaningful answer without knowing more about the case, and in particular the original sentence and the "corrected" sentence.

What are the appropriate filings/procedures that I should follow in seeking at minimum, a written response to questions submitted to the monitoring judge regarding his intercession in the original case subsequent to sentencing?

Certainly not an appeal.. Meaning you would not be requesting the appellate division to review the case, but then again, you mentioned some "errors" that were "appeal worthy"... So, again, stuck between knowing an appeal is not a simple request for answers, and an appeal being the only manner where alleged judicial errors are reviewed along with a record of the case and a determination is made to whether errors were indeed committed and whether they were material errors -meaning they impacted the outcome- and a remand or a dismissal is a likely remedy or whether they were immaterial and can simply be over looked.

But then there are also "alleged errors" which end up being the defendant's dismay and dissatisfaction with the outcome. Those unfortunately are neither errors nor are they appealable!

I wonder if a lawsuit against the city for violating my rights (lack of presence during sentencing, and the changing of sentencing after I exited the courtroom), with a remedy of reversing the judgement is in order, versus bringing this up in the appeal process.

The "city" had nothing to do with your sentencing original or subsequent, in fact the only thing that the city shares with the court is that one (presumably the court) is located within the other! (Well, maybe, just maybe... And assuming the court building is old enough, it may have been the "Municipal Court" way back when... But that is no longer the case).

The courts in California are known as "Superior Courts of California -[County Name] Courthouse. But even then, you are still far off from suing the county to get this corrected if there was any error as you describe.

As for the remedy you're hoping for, I would suggest you not get your hopes to high up. At least not =in the way you're planning it... For starters, suing the [entity] (whatever it maybe for violating your rights) would simply occur in a trial court. And in all honesty, I don't think a trial court has jurisdiction to order another trial court to do anything. For such an order, you'll have to go to the appellate. Which at first, you seemed enthusiastic about, and yet now, (are you) trying to avoid?

I must also say that your story is confusing enough simply because I am unable to find any indication that judges are monitored in the manner which you describe, and if they are, it is not part of their "first day on the job". Clearly, I am sure you would agree, such method would be described in a set of rules that are published -in the least- on the California Courts website. I searched though the California Court Rules and though there are many instances and different circumstances under which the word "monitor" appears in there, I git the impression that monitoring of judges (actually pro-tems) was conducted through court recordings and NOT by having another "judge" sit in and watch a proceeding. Nowadays, and with all the budget cuts the courts have been put through, I would think that judges would be overwhelmed with cases that they would not have time to sit through entire trials simply to monitor a subordinate.

So help us out here... Any references to such policy, rule or law??? And if so, where do those appear?

One last point to clarify...

After the (non-jury) trial (where I was found guilty).

Well, you did indicarte that this was a "traffic matter and though there are some that could be misdemeanors, maybe even felonies, I assume yours was a simple infraction, and infractions, by their very nature, do not qualify for jury trials!

From Penal Code section 19.6.

An infraction is not punishable by imprisonment. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to have the public defender or other counsel appointed at public expense to represent him or her unless he or she is arrested and not released on his or her written promise to appear, his or her own recognizance, or a deposit of bail.

[That Guy]

Per the OP's request, this thread is reactivated and can (should) accept more posts now.