"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Jr.	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Fresno County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 5.5 - 8 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 1 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

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. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Jr.

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA54602
Rating:2.8

Comments:
As others have pointed out, Hamilton does not seem very impartial in the least. In the case leading to this comment, he overlooked the opposition's intentional misstating of the law, evidence, testimony, multiple local rule and CRC violations and blatantly disrespectful behavior in court, which he himself even pointed out.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA48883
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Unfortunately Judge Hamilton does not know what impartial means... He gives preference to his former office buddies at McCormick Barstow and Whitney Thompson Jeffcoach. He is biased, unfair, and does not know the law. Pretty sure he never tried a case himself in private practice. Unfortunate that the bench is full of these types...

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA28631
Rating:9.8

Comments:
This is a judge who knows the Evidence Code and was unfailingly courteous to and open with both sides. Judge Hamilton did not rule in my client's favor on all disputes that came up during our lengthy civil jury trial. However, he always had a sound legal basis for his rulings and never took personal exception to an attorney disagreeing with his rulings.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA19235
Rating:1.0

Comments:
He is arrogant, vindictive, and sarcastic with an unpleasant manner. His wife is an attorney which was material and he did not disclose. He's got a Napoleon complex.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA12861
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
judge Hamilton He lies and fraud for his friends in court McCormick and Barstow which he used to work for Hamilton and Barstow are working the system in court and getting away with it he is a biased judge and against any pro per. He had lied about my case in court and he got away with it and I got proof that he lied about my case in court and got away with it so word to the wise do not go in front of judge Hamilton he work for McCormick and Barstow.

Other

Comment #: CA7720
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I have followed some of this judge's antics. This judge is biased against in pro per. He makes a show of being helpful, takes it under submission and rules against the in pro per. His comments are abusive and biased and he lied to the in pro per. He has a well-deserved reputation for being vindictive. He can be very biased in favor of McCormick Barstow, his alma mater. He does not know the law and does not think he is required to disclose relationships and bias.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6559
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Judge Hamilton is a no nonsense Judge and refreshing to have on our civil bench. He is not influenced by many of the political and social agendas that come along with Fresno's court system.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6429
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This judge is a toxic combination of arrogance, ignorance and pro-plaintiff prejudice. He can be openly disdainful of what he’s respectfully being told by a civil defense attorney as to the law and the facts, which ultimately were proved to be absolutely correct. He will go out of his way to gratuitously insert into his rulings the law and facts according to Judge Hamilton, with no foundation, if he thinks it might help the plaintiff. If you’re a plaintiff’s attorney, this is the guy you want. If not, there’s always 170.6. You’ve been warned. I wish I could rate him 0 instead of 1.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA6077
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Great trial judge. Knows Evidence better than nearly everyone, researched questions when called on it, willing to make a tough call when necessary and follows the law.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4958
Rating:1.1

Comments:
He awarded $3 million in punitive damages and $500,000 in damages to his friend's client. He did not disclose his Facebook activity with his friend prior to this.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1129
Rating:8.4

Comments:
I have appeared before him in both criminal and civil cases. I have seen him make decisions which were independent and sometimes difficult, decisions in which lesser lights would acquiesce to political expedience. He is independent. I also watched him conduct a trial with an emotional but articulate pro-per. He had the patience of Job; although he took it under submission I'm betting he ruled for the pro-per and against the corporation, based upon the questions he asked the litigants, a rare thing these days.