Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Judge’s Grouchiness Is No Cause for Reversal
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Neither a judge’s negative disposition on the day of a hearing or a wisecrack he uttered provides a sufficient basis for reversing an order in a domestic violence case, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has declared.
Its decision came Tuesday in an unpublished per curiam opinion signed by Acting Presiding Justice Adrienne Grover and Justices Cynthia C. Lie ad Daniel H. Bromberg.
Acting in pro per, appellant Eric Thomas Mesi questioned the impartiality of Santa Clara Judge Stuart J. Scott who ruled that the domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) in favor of Vanessa Battaglia is to remain in place. Mesi pointed out:
“Judge Stuart Scott stated to another case and party on the trial date July 17th 2023 ‘I’m in a bad mood today, I am ruling against everyone’….”
He also wrote:
“The damages done to the Appellant by the Appellee’s fabricated claims stripped the Appellant from ever working again in his career of Government Security Systems. This career supplements his SSDI Social Security income. The Appellant explained this to Judge Scott Stuart at the Court Trial, The Judge’s responded to Appellant Eric Thomas Mesi with “that does not matter anyway you are retired and disabled’….”
Mesi, 60, is partially blind.
Contentions Rejected
The justices said that “even imputing to the trial judge the comments Eric reports”—there was no transcript—“our conclusion would remain unchanged” that the renewal order was supported by the evidence.
The opinion explains:
“As Eric acknowledges, the trial judge’s announcement that he was ‘in a bad mood today’ and ‘ruling against everyone’ was not directed toward Eric, but toward “another case and party.’ As for the trial judge’s purportedly dismissing the impact of renewal of the DVRO on Eric’s employment—on the ground that Eric was ‘retired and disabled’—we cannot say that this passing comment on a collateral consequence of renewal was so prejudicial that it denied Eric ‘a fair, as opposed to a perfect, trial.’ ”
It adds:
“We do not condone the remarks, but they demonstrate no bias or partiality against Eric or for Vanessa.”
Public Admonishment
Stuart on Feb. 17, 2016, received a public admonishment by the Commission on Judicial Performance.
On Feb. 27, 2015, a jury in Scott’s courtroom convicted the defendant of a misdemeanor. Kelly Meeker, the deputy district attorney who handled the case, returned to the courtroom later that day to collect equipment; Scott asked her to come into his chambers; he insisted on commented on her trial techniques, over her protest that they shouldn’t be discussing the case prior to sentencing, and repeated efforts to terminate the conversation; and he told her, as she left: “This conversation never happened.”
Meeker reported the incident to her supervisor and a news article about the episode appeared on March 17 in the San Jose Mercury News.
The commission said:
“Judge Scott’s misconduct resulted in publicity that reflects negatively on the integrity of the judiciary. Further, the judge’s misconduct placed DDA Meeker in the unpleasant position of having to report the conversation to her supervisor. In determining that a public admonishment is the appropriate sanction, the commission considered the fact that Judge Scott engaged in serious misconduct in the judge’s official capacity, and that the conduct undermined the integrity of the judiciary and the fair administration of justice.”
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company