Comment #: AZ2700
Rating:1.4
Comments:
Heard from many fellow lawyers that nobody has chance in this court. He listened our speeches, had a glance of all the evidence we provided. The police was just playing his cell phone through the whole hearing, waiting the judge brought out the final word. Obviously not in favor of my client at all.
Why I have this kind of feeling that I was played?

Comment #: AZ2269
Rating:1.0
Comments:
[Redacted by Ed.]

Judge Dominick Sarno is violating the constitutional rights of defendants, by denying us access to a speedy public jury trial and change of judge.

He is misusing and abusing his authority, by violating his duty of loyalty to support the constitution.

Judge Dominick Sarno is not complying with the administration of justice or law, and he refuses to provide individuals with a public jury trial, as requested. Instead, he is misusing and abusing his power by scheduling bench trials, despite the defendant's wish to a speedy public jury trial by an impartial jury.

[Redacted by Ed.]

Comment #: AZ1551
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Judge Sarno is very fair, just and kind. He wants people to realize what harm not following traffic laws can cause. I would rate him highly as the kind of judge people like to see.

Thank you for being just and fair and not too harsh, Judge Sarno.

Comment #: AZ1461
Rating:2.0
Comments:
My trial experience with Judge Dominick Sarno:
The traffic stop was said to be regarding my window tint but nothing was ever discussed further about my tint and was demanded to exit the vehicle. After waiting on the side of the road for approximately 30-40 minutes his superior finally showed up up with a drug dog to sniff around my car. I spoke with Judge Sarno over the phone before and after trial. I started stating the case of Rodriguez vs United States(Holding: "Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.") when he interrupted me and said "Don't you school me on Rodriguez vs United States, I know that very well." Obviously he doesn't know it at all or he simply doesn't care what the Supreme Court rules and finds people guilty anyways.
Over a year had passed and I called the court to speak with him again. I asked him how many people he has found not guilty in a trial without their presence? He refused to answer and seemed agitated by the question. I then asked him if he was familiar with Rodriguez vs U.S.? He promptly said yes. I then asked him why he would find me guilty then if he knew about Rodriguez vs U.S.? After giving him my name and case he remembered exactly who I was. Getting upset at this point, "Honorable" Judge Sarno said he did not have to answer to me or any of my questions. I replied to him that he is in a public office/seat paid for by us, the tax payer and I want to know if you found me guilty merely because I was not present in your courtroom. Knowingly finding people guilty when you knew about Rodriguez vs US should be a crime I stated. Judge Sarno then hung up the phone. This man represents our Justice System folks. How scary is that?