An appellate court on Wednesday ruled that the San Diego Superior Court judge who leads a specialized court for mentally ill criminal defendants must heed challenges raised by prosecutors and step aside as judge in hearings to consider whether to admit two potential new participants.
It鈥檚 unclear how broad an impact the 4th District Court of Appeal opinion could have on other cases in what is known as Behavioral Health Court, a collaborative court that puts prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers and others at the same table to provide specialized care and support to each participant. Sometimes called BHC for short, the intensive program is offered to a small number of criminal defendants diagnosed with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia.
Several times since last summer, the District Attorney鈥檚 Office had challenged Judge Cindy Davis, who leads Behavioral Health Court, as the judge overseeing hearings that would determine whether new people are allowed into the program. After she repeatedly declined to step aside so a different judge could hear the case, they took their fight to the state appellate court.
Their appeals cited two cases 鈥 one involving a woman accused in the death of her former landlord, the other a woman accused of stabbing her elderly father in his hand 鈥 in which they had sought to use their peremptory challenge against Davis. While prosecutors brought the same challenge against Davis in several other cases, only those two were the basis of their appeals.
On Wednesday, a unanimous three-judge panel sided with prosecutors and ordered the judge to grant their peremptory challenges in those two cases.
The opinion was handed down as unpublished, meaning it has no binding authority on other courts.
The law allows attorneys to make one peremptory challenge against a judge, generally without requiring them to give a reason why.
In appellate filings earlier this year, prosecutors said they had become 鈥渋ncreasingly alarmed鈥 by Davis鈥 decision-making. They alleged that Davis had admitted 鈥渋nappropriate participants,鈥 overlooked input from the team that makes up the collaborative court, and 鈥渟truggled鈥 to hold participants accountable.
Asked for comment Wednesday, the District Attorney鈥檚 Office said it would 鈥渓et the well-reasoned appellate decision speak for itself.鈥 The Office of the Public Defender declined comment. The San Diego Superior Court did not respond to a request for comment; ethics rules disallow judges from commenting on pending cases.
The appeals court disagreed, finding that 鈥渢he initial screening and acceptance decision for BHC requires resolution of potentially contested issues of fact鈥 and found it appropriate to allow a peremptory challenge before the judge can decide whether to accept a new participant.
The defense attorney representing the woman accused in the death of her landlord declined to comment on the ruling Wednesday. In an appellate filing earlier this year, attorney Brandon Naidu said prosecutors were trying to keep some people out of the program and remove 鈥渁 judge whose rulings they dislike.鈥