Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: officer of the court

Judges in L.A. county are elcted officials, I believe every 6 years. Elections are now county wide, making it more difficult to knock out an incumbent. Taking issues to the press may get the attention of the public as well. Thank you for your question...David Wallin P.S. The prosecutor should be questioned to see what he/she thinks of the judges actions and what they feel about it.

Re: officer of the court

"Culpable"? As in Criminal responsibility? Zero. First of all, I don't know what you mean by "going against the finding of a jury". If they found him guilty and the judge sentenced him, he did NOT go against their finding.

I assume you mean he should have given the defendant the max time in jail/prison. Well, if everyone deserved the max, then we would not have ranges of punishments and judges would not have the power to "judge" people. And sentencing is all about judgment. No judge is perfect. If he (or you) could predict which criminals would re-offend, we would have 90% less crime.

And "child molester" covers a lot of ground. There is "Show the 12 year old dirty pics" molester and there is the "rape the 8 year old girl" molester. That is why we have ranges of punishment.

Not knowing the facts of the case you are talking about, I am not ready to accuse the judge of "criminal" neglect of his duties. Do not get the idea from this that I sympathize with molesters. In fact, they have a relatively high recidivism rate and I do think they should be dealt with harshly.

But the harm to the victim and to society is one part of sentencing. The judge also has to closely examine who the defendant is; his age; his past conduct (good and bad); probation department's evaluation of the threat he poses; his health; mental state; taking responsiblity; and much more.

I am not among those who would tie judges' hands on sentencing. That often results in killing flies with dynamite.

Re: officer of the court

Legal culpability? None. Moral? That's a different question beyond the scope of this site.

Judges have some authority to set aside jury verdicts, but it rarely happens. In all but capital cases, the jury doesn't decide punishment - that's up to the court. Sentences are set by statute, within a range of possible sentences. In some sex offenses, certain punishment is mandatory.

Without knowing the specifics of a particular case you're asking about, it's near impossible to answer your question.

Even if a judge sentences a convicted child molester to the maximum sentence allowed by law, they'll be released at some point (even some life sentences have parole eligibility dates). If the person chooses to molest again, that's not the judge's fault.

Re: officer of the court

I presume you mean that the judge granted a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or something along those lines.

All criminal defendants -- including those accused of child molestation -- have due process rights which the courts must respect. Those who are convicted sometimes argue that their trials violated those rights and ask the court to set aside the verdict. Sometimes courts agree.

If the trial really was unfair then the court did the right thing by setting the verdict aside. Judges are supposed to apply the law fairly regardless of how they feel about the defendant.

It would be wrong for a judge who privately felt that a defendant had been denied a fair trial to deny a meritorious motion for relief from the judgment. If that is what happened in the case you describe, the judge was not "culpable" at all. He did the right thing, both legally and morally.

Of course, if I knew more about what happened in this case I might see things differently.