Q: how can a california judge cite "evidence" that was never admitted in his ruling on submitted matter?

A: It would be highly unusual and generally improper for a judge to cite evidence in their ruling that was never properly admitted during the court proceedings. The fundamental principles of due process and fairness in the legal system require that all evidence considered by the court must be properly presented and admitted, with both parties having the opportunity to review and potentially challenge the evidence.

If a judge cites "evidence" in their ruling that does not appear in the official court record (such as the clerk's transcript or reporter's transcript), it could potentially be grounds for an appeal or a challenge to the ruling.

However, there might be some rare and specific circumstances where a judge could reference information outside the formal court record, such as taking judicial notice of widely known facts or referencing prior related court proceedings. But even in these situations, the parties would typically be made aware of this and have an opportunity to respond.

If you believe that a judge has acted improperly by citing evidence not in the record, you should consult with an attorney who can review the specifics of your case and advise you on potential next steps, which could include filing a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a complaint about judicial misconduct.

A: Without knowing exactly what occurred, it difficult to answer your question. A judge can certainly make logical conclusions based on the information presented.