"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. J. Yamamoto	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Contra Costa County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 1 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. J. Yamamoto

Comments

Other

Comment #: CA54524
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Rating in reference to comment # CA54367.

Other

Comment #: CA54367
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Yamamoto denied the Plaintiff a civil harassment restraining order based on insufficient evidence.

The Plaintiff was a victim of a home invasion where the Defendant (a next door neighbor) broke the Plaintiff’s apartment front door down and assaulted her causing a concussion, cranial trauma requiring staples to the back of her skull, and injuries to her shoulder. During the invasion, the Defendant threatened to kill her roommate. In addition, the Plaintiff, in a separate incident, described a threatening gesture that the Defendant made to her a few days later after he was released from jail.

Yamamoto stated that these incidents (4) described above, did not constitute enough evidence to grant a restraining order and denied the request.

The Defendant did not even show up for the court hearing.

Unbelievable.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA54149
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I believe she is a Commissioner not a judge.

On the plus side she runs the courtroom and focuses on essential matters. Most judges let the parties stray.

On the negative, she is way too harsh on Petitioners on the RO calendar. I heard her discount clear testimony that a respondent threatened the Petitioner with violence in well understood vernacular but the judge pressed Petitioner to admit that the respondent hadn’t said he would “kill” her. In another egregious case she denied an order despite uncontradicted testimony that the absent respondent brandished and threatened violence.

She also should tell pro pers what needs to be proven. She asked one if he had suffered “extreme harassment” when all that she needed to prove was harassment as defined by law.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA52759
Rating:1.0

Comments:
[|Redacted by Ed. She made a ruling dismissing our elder abuse restraining order on the basis of lack of standing of the wife even though she and the elder had a 27 year marriage and a so a long-standing relationship. Very troubling.