DUBLIN — An Alameda County judge is facing allegations that she violated an important tenet of the justice system designed to ensure jurists stay fair and impartial, then lied on the record when a defense lawyer raised concerns.
New court filings call into question Judge Barbara Dickinson’s decision to kill a controversial plea agreement last year, a move she made after allegedly discussing the case with the prosecutor, outside the defense lawyer’s presence. Such discussions — referred to in the legal system as “ex parte” communications, in Latin meaning “from one party” — are explicitly forbidden by the state’s judicial canon. Judges who violate this tenant have faced serious consequences, including being kicked off the bench.
Concerns over Dickinson’s handling of the case — first raised by a defense attorney — were exacerbated when another judge sided with the defense, reversing Dickinson’s decision and reinstating the deal. The judge who made the reversal stated on the record that the prior handling of the case had been “definitely not right,” according to a court transcript.
The state’s Commission on Judicial Performance, an oversight body that can discipline judges, says they’re forbidden from saying whether or not the matter is under investigation. Dickinson did not respond to a request for comment.
The controversy centers on the case against Sekou Brandon, a 21-year-old Oakley resident who crashed his vehicle during a police chase in Livermore in 2022, killing 73-year-old Linda Susan Woodward. Prosecutors originally charged Brandon with murder, but agreed with Brandon’s attorney to allow him to plead no contest to manslaughter in exchange for a seven-year, eight-month prison term, court records show.
The deal was lambasted by Woodward’s family and friends, who showed up in full force at multiple hearings to voice their opposition, according to media reports. At an August 2023 court hearing, Dickinson was supposed to preside over the deal and decide whether it should go through.
But just before the hearing’s start, Dickinson called both attorneys in for a brief sidebar, according to a motion filed by defense lawyer Annie Beles. It was there that Dickinson stated that she wouldn’t be accepting the deal, adding, “I asked (Deputy District Attorney) Elgin (Lowe) about this case yesterday and I have read the probable cause declaration, and I just don’t feel ok with this,” according to a sworn statement filed by Beles under penalty of perjury.
When Beles raised concerns that Dickinson had discussed the case with opposing counsel in private, the judge allegedly told Beles, “stop that,” and reiterated she was killing the deal. Once on the record, Dickinson recounted the sidebar with the attorneys, making factual claims that Beles says were flat-out false.
“What I said at the bench was that this Court didn’t have enough information to even be comfortable going forward with accepting the plea. That’s what I said,” Dickinson said during the hearing, referencing the sidebar. She later added, “I think we have two sets of families, both in pain. We have a very, very young man who is also in pain. This case may need to go to preliminary hearing. That’ s what I said.”
In fact, she said none of those things, according to Beles’ sworn declaration.
“I do not recall any mention of ‘two sets of families, both in pain’ or that Judge Dickinson said anything like, ‘This may need to go to preliminary hearing’ at the bench,” Beles wrote in court filings. “Judge Dickinson appeared to have her mind made up before I walked to the bench, apparently based upon her ex parte communication with DA Lowe.”
If Beles’ motion is true, Dickinson violated a section of the judicial code that says judges “shall not initiate, permit, or consider” any ex parte communications, said retired Santa Clara County Judge LaDoris Cordell, who taught at the state’s judicial college for 10 years. The rule is designed to prevent one party from being able to affect the outcome of a legal proceeding in secret.
“I find this problematic,” Cordell said. “You wear that robe, you have to know the rules … You can’t do that. That’s just an obvious one.”
Judges who engage in ex parte communications are often disciplined. Last May, a judge was given a public admonishment for texting a prosecutor during a murder trial, a move that “attempted to put a thumb on the scales of justice,” the CJP wrote in a scathing report.
In 2018 the CJP barred a Contra Costa judge from ever practicing again, after he retired during a pending misconduct hearing. He faced multiple ethics complaints, including giving a lawyer advice on how to handle a DUI case outside the presence of opposing counsel.
Dickinson was appointed by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 2013, and previously served as a deputy public defender in Alameda County since 1989. She was transferred from handling criminal matters to probate court shortly after this hearing, a move that had been preplanned.
After Dickinson rejected the plea deal, Beles filed a motion asking Judge Stuart Hing to overturn Dickinson’s decision and reinstate the deal, which prosecutors had taken off the table after Dickinson’s ruling. Beles’ motion argued that Dickinson had erred twice, by having the ex parte conversation with Lowe and then by refusing Beles a chance to argue her side at the August 2023 hearing.
Last September, Hing made his ruling, overturning Dickinson’s rejection and forcing the deal back on the table.
“The primary reason is the way it happened afterwards was definitely not right,” Hing said in court. “I do believe that if I denied the motion, it’s going to be automatic appellate error, and this case could go on for life.”
His ruling doesn’t quite end things; Brandon still has to be formally sentenced by yet another judge, who will have the option of once again rejecting the deal and reinstating the murder charge.
That hearing has been set for December.
Originally Published:
Source: www.mercurynews.com