P v. Superior Court (Tejeda) Blanket Papering of Judge By Orange County D.A. Is Constitutional.

One Mr. Tejeda was charged with a gang murder in Orange County.  His case was assigned for all purposes to Judge Thomas Goethals.  The State then filed a motion to disqualify Judge Goethals pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, a statute which allows both parties in a case to disqualify one judge.  Under 170.6 there is no evidentiary burden on the moving party, the party may simply execute a boilerplate affidavit stating its belief that the judge at issue is unqualified to hear the case.  As long as the motion is timely, it is usually granted as a matter of right.

But here the motion was denied by one Judge King.  Denied because Judge King found the Orange County DA had been "blanket papering" Judge Goethals as payback for Judge Goethals having previously found the DA's office had committed misconduct in other cases and ordered the D.A.'s office disqualified from prosecuting certain cases as a consequence of the misconduct.  Since Judge Goethal's judicial assignment was to hear long and complicated cases, the fact the DA was disqualifying him in nearly every case was wreaking havoc with the O.C. courts.  Judge King felt the DA, upset with Judge Goethals' past rulings, was abusing section 170.6 with an eye toward getting Judge Goethals reassigned.  

The State petitioned for a writ which the Fourth District issues directing Judge King to vacate his denial and reassign the case to a different judge.  

The great Judge Richard Posner recently wrote an excellent book on how judges think.  He describes the process as a two-step.  In the first step, the judge settles on what she believes is a reasonable result based on the judge's view of the world.  Step two is determining whether the judge is "blocked" from getting to her preferred result by a statute, a higher court decision, or pragmatic concerns.

I say with certainty that all three justices on this panel personally believe this kind of "blanket papering" should not be permitted because it disrupts the administration of the courts and compromises the independence of the judiciary.  Where the panel differs is whether they are "blocked" from getting to this result.  The author of the opinion and the concurring justice conclude they are blocked by the California Supreme Court's decision in Solberg (1977) 19 Cal.3d. 182, and say so.  They go so far as to beg California's high court to revisit the issue.  The dissenter, unsurprisingly, believes there is wiggle room within Solberg to justify Judge King's denial.  

 

So as of now, the State can continue to "paper" Judge Goethals as retribution for his past adverse rulings.