Disqualification of Judge

NOT a contested hearing of the facts on the merits

• Arraignment. (Moreira v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 42.)
• Motion to amend information. (People v. Hunter (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 634, 638, fn.2)
• Preliminary examination. (Barrett v. Superior Court (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 1, 5–7.)
• 995. (Kohn v. Superior Court (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 428, 431.)
• Marsden. (People v. Whitfield (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 299, 304.)
• 1368. (Waldon v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 809.)
• Plea bargains and chambers conferences. (People v. Montalvo (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 790, 795 but see People v. Reynolds (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 796.)
• Summary revocation. (Depper v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 15, 18–21.)

IS a contested hearing of the facts on the merits

• 1538.5 (In re Abdul Y. (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 847, 857-861.)

• Hitch/Trombetta-Youngblood motion (People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 949.)

Plea bargains

People v. Montalvo (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 790, 795;Faijo v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 222, 225; but see Lyons v. Superior Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 625

After plea, but before sentencing

Smith v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 151; People v. Reynolds (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 796.)

What matters may a disqualified judge can hear

170.4(a)(4) default matters

Yolo County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Myers (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 42

Blanket disqualification

So since the California Supreme Court’s decision in Solberg (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, blanket disqualification of a judge under CCP170.6 allowed. A blanket disqualification is when a party tries to disqualify a judge on a substantial number of cases, which can be used to choose to decide which judge hears a case, and it can be particularly powerful if exercised by a district attorney’s office, a public defender’s office, or a firm that is contracted for a particular type of case such as juvenile dependency. It can also be disruptive if the challenge is made to a judge is assigned to a specialized court. So in Solberg is overruled.

So if a party makes a 170.6 motion, opposing counsel can object. “the opponent of a section 170.6 motion must first timely object to a section 170.6 motion and demonstrate a prima facie case that the motion’s proponent is lodging bad faith blanket challenges against a particular judge. More specifically, the opponent of a section 170.6 motion must show that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of a bad faith blanket policy, as opposed to a good faith belief that a judge is prejudiced in a specific case. Among the factors that may be considered in making this prima facie determination are whether the party has lodged persistent strikes against the same judge in all or a substantial portion of cases assigned to that judge, or all or a substantial portion of cases of a particular type. Such a showing may alone be persuasive in establishing a prima facie case of a bad faith blanket policy. As described below, the burden then shifts to the proponent of the motion to give an adequate explanation for the challenges.”

The above procedure is deliberately modeled after Batson-Wheeler/AB3070. So Party X makes a 170.6 motion before judge A. Party Y would object and state a prima facie case to Judge A why it’s a bad faith blanket challenge. If the judge who is being disqualified, judge A, finds prima facie that it’s a bad-faith blanket disqualification, then it gets sent to a different judge, judge B, and party X has to explain it’s not bad-faith.