"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. Marisa Hernandez-Stern

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA55288
Rating:1.0

Comments:
She’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Her decisions are capricious, frivolous, and not based on law [Redacted by Ed.] She makes decisions by just saying “denied.” She is only here to protect the rich and powerful, [Redacted by Ed.] . Paper her and disqualify. She has no respect for the constitutional rights of the poor and less fortunate. She denied all due process.

Litigant

Comment #: CA54735
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Very prejudicing judge during my case, ignoring my constitutional rights abuses, she didn’t intentionally to promote fraud and misrepresentation, ex parte communications but the result was indeed unconstitutional ruling, maybe sometime she need to walk around the Los Angeles streets to see there output one of this they flooded with homeless people not all was legitimate complaints but a victim of constitutional rights abuses of state government especially defendant who can’t afford to pay or hire abusive and malpractice law firm and lastly maybe before she make any rulings she need to authenticate all documents including complaints and evidence to make sure fairness of the proceedings.