People v. Williams

Good Law
156 Cal. App. 4th 949·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1828·67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 711
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 7, 2007B196202California4,493 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

Lawyers appreciate a trial court which candidly explains the reasons for its rulings. This may help lawyers and their clients in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. This is in contrast to the trial court which utters words like “granted,” “overruled,” “denied,” “sustained” without any explanation as to how it reached its pretrial or trial rulings. A trial court which elects to explain its rulings should consider how its explanations will appear. Here, the trial court was deeply troubled by its perception of perjury. Its outpouring of candor resulted in another judge disqualifying it for cause on a charge of bias even though the trial court denied that it was biased. A trial court which is contemplating a comment on perceived perjury of a party should perhaps pause, reflect, and then articulate a candid but measured response. The appearance of justice is vitally important to the administration of justice and we counsel judicial restraint in the future. Unfortunately, that did not happen here.

Ronald Edward Williams appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to cultivation of marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358.) The imposition…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.