Sei sulla pagina 1di 3
weusene ner coun EEE yuu veccun Assembly HER eo Goalifosni Q ogPury cg counset. enor aaron fifornia Legislature Eom censnnco cee oe course xevwauey Eric ena. St ehecren, Seto Felon cause tere STATE CAPITOL, ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Pato Suc WARK STONE CHAIN oamasare" SACRAMENTO, CA 240.0108 (ois) srozs3e July 30, 2018 California Protective Mother's of Solano County Jaclyn Qirreh, P.O. Box 1198 # 1352 Sacramento, CA 95812 Dear California Protective Mother's of Solano County and Ms. Qirreh: ‘Thank you for submitting your petition to impeach Solano Court Superior Court Judge Christine Carringer to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, We understand that Judge Carringer’s rulings have caused a number of families a great deal of anger and pai However, for the reasons set forth below, our Committee is unable to recommend that the full Assembly initiate impeachment proceedings against Judge Carringer. Under the California Constitution, the Assembly holds the "sole power of impeachment.” (California Constitution, Article IV, Section 18(a).) The Assembly's impeachment power extends to "State officers elected on a statewide basis, members of the State Board of Equalization, and judges of state courts." (California Constitution, Article IV, Section 18(b).). However, this power has only been used twice in state history. The first instance was in 1862, involving Judge James Hardy, who was accused of fixing the trial of a former chief justice of the California Supreme Court who was on trial for the murder of United States Senator, as well as making inflammatory statements in favor of slavery during the Civil War. After a 14-day trial, he was acquitted on all charges, except disloyalty to country, and removed from office. The second, and last, impeachment was in 1929 against Judge Carlos S. Hardy, who was charged with practicing law while sitting as a judge and essentially obstructing justice, After a 22-day trial, he was acquitted of all charges. With just these two usages, the impeachment process has not proven to be a very effective method for disciplining judges in California. A law review note best explains the limitations of impeachment for removing unfit judges Notwithstanding the prevalence of impeachment provisions in state constitutions throughout the country, research and experience have shown that as a method of effectively removing unfit judges itis little used and of no real value. Impeachment is both cumbersome and wastefully expensive in that it demands the time and energies of some or all members of both houses of a legislature for extended periods. A legislature's time is ill-spent in having to charge, try, and ultimately judge members of the bench who are believed unqualified for further ~