Q: what happens when the victim of a crime is anattorney and the case is heard in the local court where they are known?
Here is a question sent to my partners public defender by me.
The judge mentioned that the person who was affected by the incident was an attorney who had professional connections with the court and was known by staff at the DA office and the court as well as the judge himself. Neither Michael nor I was ever made aware of the " victims" link with the court and the DA which the judge mentioned yesterday that he knew them. After thinking this over we find this to be quite a significant factor and wonder what would the normal process be in this case and would the charges have been the same without the connection to the DA office and the Judge?
Also the original charge states this was a violent crime as it was committed at a residence. The judge yesterday stated it was at a place of business which would have been a lesser charge if I am not mistaken. Are you able to shed any light on these items?
A: The Code of Civil Procedure 170.6 says a judge can be disqualified from presiding over a civil lawsuit or criminal trial if the judge seems to be prejudiced against one of the parties or attorneys.
If the victim of a crime is an attorney and the case is heard in the local court where they are known, it could potentially raise issues of bias or conflicts of interest. In such a situation, the judge and court staff are expected to act impartially and treat the case the same as any other case. However, the fact that the victim has professional connections with the court and the DA may create the appearance of impropriety.
Regarding the change in location of the crime, it is possible that the judge made a mistake in stating that it occurred at a place of business instead of a residence. This could potentially impact the severity of the charges and the potential sentence. If this is a concern, the defense attorney may want to bring this up to the judge and clarify the location of the crime.
It is also worth noting that if there is any perceived bias or impropriety in the handling of the case, the defense attorney may raise these concerns and request that the case be transferred to a different court or judge to ensure a fair trial.
California Code of Civil Procedure 170.6 is a legal provision that allows a party to disqualify a judge from a civil or criminal case by making a peremptory challenge. This means that the party can have the judge removed without giving a specific reason or cause for the challenge.
Under this provision, a party may file an affidavit stating that the judge before whom the action is pending is prejudiced against the party or their attorney. The affidavit must be filed and served on the judge and all parties no later than five days before the hearing or trial. If the judge is challenged, the judge will be disqualified from hearing the case, and another judge will be assigned to the case.
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that all parties receive a fair and impartial hearing, and to prevent any appearance of bias or prejudice by a judge. However, it is important to note that the peremptory challenge can only be used once per party, per case. If a party has previously used their peremptory challenge in a case, they cannot use it again in the same case.
It is also worth noting that the right to use a peremptory challenge is not absolute, and there are certain limitations and exceptions to its use. For example, a challenge cannot be made after the trial has begun, or after the judge has made a ruling in the case. Additionally, certain types of cases, such as small claims cases or cases involving a temporary restraining order, may not be subject to the peremptory challenge provision.
In summary, California Code of Civil Procedure 170.6 is a legal provision that allows a party to disqualify a judge from a civil or criminal case by making a peremptory challenge. The purpose of this provision is to ensure a fair and impartial hearing, and to prevent any appearance of bias or prejudice by a judge.
California Code of Civil Procedure 170.6 provides a way for parties in a civil case to disqualify a judge from presiding over their case. This can be used in situations where one of the parties believes that the judge may be biased or have a conflict of interest that could affect their ability to make a fair ruling.
For example, suppose a plaintiff is suing a large corporation in a civil case and the judge assigned to the case has a history of ruling in favor of corporations. The plaintiff may file a motion to disqualify the judge under CCP 170.6, citing this potential bias. If the motion is granted, a new judge will be assigned to the case.
It's important to note that there are certain restrictions and deadlines associated with using CCP 170.6, so it's important to consult with an attorney if you're considering filing such a motion.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.