"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. Jose S Castillo

Comments

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA40033
Rating:1.8

Comments:
NEWLY appointed judge
Does not review case, declarations or evidence before trial. He is usually looking for the evidence binders or declarations on site.
When it is time to present the motion he does not allow time to present the evidence binders nor to introduce witnesses.
He issued unconstitutional court orders in violation of civil rights. Life altering court orders for children prior to an evidentiary court hearing.
He allows attorneys to go on a rampage of hearsay and speculation without any evidence.
His court orders will place a parent facing financial hardship, break family unity and endanger children.
He completely disregarded the FCS report and completely disregarded the rulings issued in the best interest of the child by the other judges in long cause hearing.
He is not consistent with court orders or other judges.
He is a PUSH over , let’s misconduct attorneys rule the court room without any evidence
He allows other attorneys to object to important evidence and he is not the ultimate authority in the court room.
He said he would order child welfare services and he never did.
You cannot manage a professional case in this court room.
This judge needs to learn to become the authority over attorneys and issue constitutional court orders in the best interest of the minors.