Judge Patrick Connolly of Los Angeles County has been unsuccessful in his attempt to disqualify a colleague from a resentencing case involving a defendant Connolly had previously prosecuted. The motion filed by Connolly was denied by Orange County Superior Court Judge Cheri Pham on the grounds that Connolly did not have standing, as reported by the Los Angeles Times. Although the motion did not succeed, it has raised concerns among ethics experts.
The disqualification motion brought forward by Connolly argued that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Daniel Lowenthal should be removed from the case due to alleged prejudgment and bias against law enforcement. Connolly pointed to Facebook posts made by Lowenthal advocating for criminal justice reform, which Connolly claimed showed a predisposition against law enforcement.
Additionally, Connolly’s filing stated that any ruling suggesting mishandling of evidence during the trial would essentially constitute a finding of misconduct against him. This raises the stakes in the case, as it questions the integrity of Connolly’s actions during the trial.
The central issue in the case revolves around the admissibility of a statement from a confidential informant during the trial of defendant Justin Flint, who was convicted of murder. Flint did not fire the fatal shot that killed an off-duty sheriff’s deputy but was involved in the deputy’s robbery, leading to his conviction. The key question is whether the informant’s statement, which suggested that Flint was acting as a lookout “down the street” and might not have seen the victim’s law enforcement badge, should have been admitted as evidence. Resentencing for Flint hinges on his awareness of the victim’s status as a law enforcement officer.
Start hiring the best legal talent today – submit your job openings with BCG Attorney Search.
In March, Judge Lowenthal expressed concerns that the fairness of the trial may have been compromised due to the failure to disclose the informant’s statement. According to the Los Angeles Times, the informant indicated in his conversation with a co-defendant that Flint was positioned “down the street” during the incident. This information raises doubts about whether Flint knew the victim’s law enforcement status. Failure to perceive the victim’s badge could have significant implications for Flint’s eligibility for resentencing.
During the original trial, Connolly presented the informant’s statement to the presiding judge, who determined that it should not be admitted as evidence. As a result, ethics experts argue that Connolly cannot be held responsible for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, as he had already submitted the information to the judge. However, concerns have been raised about the propriety of Connolly’s disqualification motion.
Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, expressed unease over Connolly’s actions. According to the Los Angeles Times, Levenson emphasized that Connolly, as a sitting judge, is prohibited from commenting on pending cases. The attempt to interfere with another judge’s proceedings raises ethical concerns and presents a challenging dilemma, as judges are expected to uphold impartiality and avoid any appearance of impropriety.
The outcome of this resentencing case has significant implications for the defendant, Justin Flint, and the integrity of the judicial process. The denial of Connolly’s disqualification motion allows Judge Lowenthal to continue presiding over the case. The concerns raised by ethics experts highlight the importance of maintaining the independence and neutrality of the judiciary while ensuring a fair and just legal system.