WOODLAND — A Yolo Superior Court judge has declined to disqualify himself from a Davis child assault case, saying the defense attorney who questioned his impartiality failed to demonstrate proof of any bias or prejudice he might hold against her or her office.
Yolo Superior Court Judge Paul Richardson. Enterprise file photo
“She cites no actions, demeanor, or rulings in this matter to support disqualification,” Judge Paul K. Richardson wrote in a declaration filed last Friday, four days after Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeria served a motion to remove him as the assigned judge to the Darnell Dorsey case.
Dorsey, 23, is accused of fatally beating his girlfriend’s toddler son Cameron Morrison in January 2014. His trial, which was supposed to begin this week, now stands in limbo until the disqualification issue is resolved.
In her motion, Sequeria challenged Richardson’s ability to fairly preside over the Dorsey case in light of two subpoenas she filed last July and again in February, seeking the judge’s testimony in an unrelated case in which a suspect in a gang-related shooting was accused of threatening the victim in court.
Sequeria claimed Richardson’s testimony would exculpate her client, but the judge successfully had both subpoenas voided after retaining a private attorney who argued that, in addition to not witnessing the alleged threat, Richardson enjoys immunity from such testimony as a judicial officer.
Then, in December, Richardson denied a defense request to delay the Dorsey trial from January to the spring, though he later relented after finding good cause for a postponement.
“His demonstrated bias and animosity towards me and my office cannot be ignored,” Sequeira wrote in her disqualification motion.
In his response, Richardson noted that it was Dorsey co-counsel Joseph Gocke who argued for the trial continuance, and that Sequeira was not even in the courtroom during those hearings. Besides, he added, “an adverse judicial ruling does not provide a ground for disqualification.”
As for the subpoena issue, Richardson contends Sequeira’s move to disqualify him is untimely because it wasn’t raised until last month, rather than when he opposed the first subpoena served upon him last July.
“Sequeira was on notice of the purported facts she contends support disqualification in July 2015, yet she did not file any challenge against me,” the declaration says.
Richardson also pointed out that Sequeira recently has appeared in his courtroom on several other cases, and “has made no contention that I am biased or prejudiced against her or the Yolo Public Defender’s Office in these matters.”
“My actions, demeanor, and rulings in these matters do not support a finding that a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that I can be impartial or that I am biased or prejudiced against DPD Sequeira or the Yolo Public Defender’s Office,” Richardson wrote.
The Dorsey case is due back in court March 15. If Sequeira continues to pursue the disqualification, she and Richardson can either agree upon a Yolo County judge to rule on the matter, or the Judicial Council of California must appoint an outside judge to make that call.
— Reach Lauren Keene at lkeene@davisenterprise.net or 530-747-8048. Follow her on Twitter at @laurenkeene