Supervisors want more superior court judges

The judicial system is a critical and vital component of government. Public safety requires more than police simply arresting people accused of a crime — whether criminal or civil. The defendants must either admit the deed or must stand trial. A judge oversees the trial and often sets the penalty if the defendant is found guilty.

For a variety of reasons, including the court’s closure during the worst of the COVID pandemic, many cases in Riverside County, both criminal and civil, have been dismissed. The county superior court began dismissing cases in October 2022. Since then, the total number of cases dismissed has risen to 1,371, including both felony and misdemeanor.

“Of that number, 97 felony cases have been dismissed, including charges of attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, sex crimes, child abuse and domestic violence, among others,” supervisors Kevin Jeffries (1st District) and Karen Spiegel (2nd District) told their colleagues in their recommendation for some action to remedy this situation.

Many of the dismissed cases involved a victim. A majority of these dismissed cases had been scheduled at the superior court’s Larson Justice Center in Indio.

In December, District Attorney Mike Hestrin’s office issued a press release, in which he said, “Our office respectfully disagrees with the decisions the judges continue to make regarding mass case dismissals. A one-size fits all approach of blanket case dismissals is not the answer. We are continuing to ask the bench to look at each case individually to determine if there is good cause to continue the matter until a courtroom becomes available …

“One thousand cases dismissed is a thousand too many,” Hestrin continued. “These are real cases with real victims. The victims deserve the right have their case heard in a court of law. Our victims of crime are being deprived of justice because of a case backlog in the courts.”

At its earlier January meeting, the board supported several state legislative bills that would benefit Riverside County. Senate Bill 75, sponsored by state Sen. Richard Roth (District 31, Riverside), would add 26 new judgeships statewide although the State Judicial report said 98 are needed. Roth recommends many be assigned to Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

At last week’s meeting, the supervisors unanimously approved Jeffries’s and Spiegel’s recommendation to consider what local actions might be taken to help mitigate the problem.

They proposed that County Executive Officer Jeff Van Wagenen and other county agencies coordinate a review of the current challenges facing the criminal justice system and develop preliminary findings. They gave Van Wagenen 45 days to prepare the report with recommendations the board might implement.

The other participants would include representatives from the superior court, the District Attorney’s Office, the Law Offices of the Public Defender, the Probation Department, the Sheriff’s Department and the Indigent Criminal Defense Contractors.

“Although replacement of judicial positions does not come under our jurisdiction at Riverside County, it is concerning it will have a significant impact to our residents,” Spiegel stated as she began her explanation for the proposal. “Riverside County is not getting our fair share of resources in many areas. But lack of funding for judges per our population is a growing concern; especially when it results in criminal cases being dismissed.”

While the state may not have a sufficient number of judges, Jeffries and Spiegel accentuated Riverside County’s shortage relative to the rest of the state. “Riverside’s ratio of judicial positions per 100,000 residents is 3.4, compared to the statewide average of 11.4. According to the Judicial Council of California’s November study entitled, ‘The Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts,’ Riverside County has 22 fewer judges than we need, second only to San Bernardino County.”

The state’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget funded four more judgeships for Riverside County.

Spiegel stressed that the state and U.S. constitutions guarantee a judicial system for resolving problems, finding innocence or guilt, and setting restitutions, including jail sentences.

“[It is] not just to those criminally accused, but also all these civil matters,” she continued. “Our system of government does not work without a functioning judicial system. We were built on that.”

Before the unanimous vote in favor, Jeffries shared that he had discussed the possibility of declaring a “state of emergency” after so many cases were dismissed, but he and Van Wagenen could not find a specific matter that could point to a danger.

The group will not hold a public meeting on the subject while working on the report. When the report is submitted to the board, that agenda item will serve as the public’s opportunity to express an opinion, according to Brooke Federico, the county’s public information officer.

Hestrin had no comment about the board’s action, according to Amy McKenzie, director of communications for the District Attorney’s Office.