Monday, July 31, 2006

In Re Jonathon M. (Cal. Ct. App. - July 31, 2006)

Ever see an opinion published solely for the purpose of insulting the trial judge below? If not, read this one. It's a perfect example.

The tenor of the opinion is evident from its first paragraph, in which Justice Sims states: "Once again, we are asked to issue a writ commanding San Joaquin County Juvenile Court Judge Barbara A. Kronlund to honor a peremptory challenge filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 (section 170.6). Once again, we shall issue a writ."

The opinion goes on like that for thirteen pages. All with respect to a writ petition in which the "opposition" to the writ (by Judge Kronlund) states, in its entirety: "Upon further review, Real Party in Interest will not be filing an opposition in this case.”

Think Justice Sims decided to publish a thirteen page opinion in an appeal the respondent conceded because the law regarding this undisputed matter was unclear? Or, instead, because Judge Kronlund has consistently hacked him off?

You be the judge.

POSTSCRIPT - I received a helpful (and very nice) e-mail from one of the participants in the case, who noted -- correctly -- that the AG's office was technically representing the People of the State of California, not Judge Kronlund, in this writ proceeding. So it was really the People, not Judge Kronlund, who expressly stated that they wouldn't be filing an opposition. Hope that clears things up (or at least makes them more accurate)!