Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Conflict?

The judge doesn't represent anybody. Your question is like asking, What team does the ref play for? The judge is paid by the state or by the county in a California Superior Court. In a jury trial, the jury is the "trier of fact" and decides questions of fact, like do we believe Witness A or Witness B. In a court trial, and in pretrial proceedings, the judge is the trier of fact. The judge is always the trier of law (he or she decides which legal principles apply).

Sometimes judges make mistakes, and this is why there are appellate courts. Only erroneous decisions as to the -law- can normally be appealed. Courts of appeal do not like to overrule trial courts on issues such as whether to believe Witness A or Witness B, because they were not there to see the witness testify.

Like any juror, the judge has his or her own life experience, prejudices, biases, and it is his or her duty to decide, or judge, those issues properly before him or her to decide.

Obviously every ruling a judge makes is going to aggrieve one side, or the other. Sometimes litigants are very strongly dissatisfied with, or even Pissed Off at, the judge's ruling. This is why there are Bailiffs.

Sometimes a judge will rule against you over and over for no apparent reason. When this happens, lawyers make sure a court reporter is there to take down the judge's words and make a record for a possible appeal.

Re: Conflict?

The judge doesn't represent anybody. Her job is to consider what the parties and their representatives offer in the way of evidence and argument and then reach an unbiased decision.

Before trial, the judge performs administrative tasks and rules on various pretrial motions. Those motions involve such issues as the admissibility of evidence and the legal validity of some or all of the charges, but do not involve questions of the defendant's guilt or innocence. That issue is only resolved at trial. Like juries, judges are supposed to presume the defendant is innocent unless and until the prosecution proves otherwise at trial. In principle, then, no one passes judgment on the defendant before trial at all.

Who pays the judges varies from one court to another. In California, Superior Court judges are usually paid by the counties in which they sit, while justices of the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court are paid by the state. Federal judges at all levels are paid by the federal government. The title of your question suggests that you think being paid by the government creates a conflict of interest for the judges, but that is a very hard position to defend. Separation of powers is fundamental to our system of government, and one reason is the need to preserve judicial independence. Judges are part of the judicial branch of the government and are not connected in any way to the executive branch -- which employs the prosecutors who represent the government during criminal trials. Besides, who would pay the judges if the government didn't?