Committee endorses reassignment plan after defendants waive a jury; defense and scholars raise constitutional and efficiency concerns
Loading...
Summary
HB 310 would require random reassignment of cases in multi‑judge districts after a defendant waives a jury trial to curb perceived judge‑shopping. Supporters said it promotes fairness; defense groups, constitutionalists and court‑process experts warned of forum‑shopping by prosecutors, due‑process issues and docket delays. Committee reported the bill favorably, though opponents objected.
Representative Carlson described HB 310 as a narrowly targeted fix to prevent judge‑shopping after a defendant waives a jury trial in districts with three or more criminal judges: the bill would randomly reassign the case among remaining criminal judges.
Attorney General representatives and prosecutors testified the change addresses an appearance problem and protects fairness. "We want to prevent judge shopping in criminal cases," Larry Freeman said.
Defense attorneys and civil‑liberties groups pushed back. Kelly Carmina (LACDL) and Megan Garvey argued the reassignment will create delays, clog dockets and impede ethical advice to clients because defense counsel cannot predict where a waived‑trial case will be tried. Constitutional concerns were raised by Sarah Whittington and veteran defense counsel citing State v. Cooper and related jurisprudence, which they said limit reallotment triggered by prosecutorial action.
Will Snowden of the Juror Project testified about efficiency tradeoffs, noting judges who rule at preliminary examinations often have relevant factual familiarity that would be lost if a case is reassigned. After extended debate, the committee recorded a favorable report (roll-call recorded as yeas 10, nays 2 earlier), though opponents signaled intent to press constitutional concerns further as the bill moves forward.
