Rejecting a challenge to their impartiality based on California’s judicial elections system, the Supreme Court today affirms multiple convictions and the death penalty against an Orange County gang member. Also, acting on the Attorney General’s concession, the court strikes five gang enhancements that were added to convictions of gang participation.
Justice Goodwin Liu writes the opinion in People v. Nguyen for the entire court except Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, who writes a concurring and dissenting opinion. (Justice Cuéllar has written two opinions for the court, but this is his first separate opinion.) The dissent is a limited one, disagreeing with the court’s affirmance of a conviction for aiding and abetting an attempted murder.
Among many other issues, the court rejects the defendant’s argument that he could not get a fair trial or appellate review because the superior court judge and the Supreme Court justices are all subject to judicial elections. The opinion summarizes the argument: “judges who are subject to election cannot be impartial because they might be removed from office if they rule in favor of a capital defendant.” For a judge, elections might be like a crocodile in his or her bathtub, and the voters’ removal of Supreme Court justices might become more common than a hundred-year flood, but the court finds they do not present the “extreme facts” necessary to cast doubt on judicial impartiality.
