"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Jennifer Lee

Comments

Other

Comment #: CA46313
Rating:1.0

Comments:
On November 15, 17,18, & 21st, 2022, I was a prospective juror on a case involving child abuse. The jury selection spanned the dates listed. Ultimately, I was not chosen as a juror and was released on November 21st. Here are the facts that have led me to filing this complaint against Judge Jennifer Lee., the presiding judge on this case.

During the jury selection process, there were questions of the prospective jurors with respect to whether they had ever been the victims of child abuse or knew someone that had been a victim of child abuse, which I understand is standard for this type of jury selection process. One of the prospective stated that she felt she could not be objective as a result of having direct experience with child abuse. The Judge subsequently accused the prospective juror, in front of everyone, of trying to evade jury duty. I am a Pediatric Neuropsychologist and was appalled at the public shaming of this woman, when the Judge could not have had any knowledge to have known one way or the other if the prospective juror was being truthful. In my professional opinion, if the Judge had suspicions that the prospective juror was not being truthful, she should have taken her aside and spoken with her privately. Instead she acted in a punitive manner and required the woman to return in 6 weeks for subsequent jury duty. It felt like an abuse of power and if this prospective juror had truly been a victim of child abuse, would most likely on exacerbate any trauma they may still be experiencing.