On respecting the judiciary

Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco needs to figure out if he respects the local judiciary. Over the last three years, he has publicly criticized two judges, calling for the resignation of one and blaming another for the death of a baby. Last week, he called our entire Court of Appeal biased.

Now, with a judge signing off on his recount of ballots from the Proposition 50 election, that ruling is suddenly above reproach, and the Attorney General's legal petitions to overrule Kiel's order are ridiculous in Bianco's eyes.

"She should resign"

In December 2022, Bianco called for the resignation of San Bernardino Superior Judge Cara Hutson, blaming her for the death of a sheriff's deputy. Following a bench trial, Hutson found William Shae McKay guilty of kidnapping and assault. When McKay failed to show up to his sentencing hearing, Hutson placed a warrant for his arrest. McKay would fatally shoot Riverside Sheriff's Deputy Isaiah Cordero during a traffic stop, before the Sheriff's Department brought him in. Bianco criticized Hutson for the amount of bail she placed McKay under.

"I think that what she should do is resign. She has proven that she has absolutely no business being in the position that she is," Bianco told Fox11.

"Absolute breakdown of justice"

Last August, Bianco criticized acting Riverside Judge Dwight Moore for granting Jake Haro probation after Haro plead guilty to child abuse against his daughter at an early stage. Haro would later plead guilty to murdering his baby son, Emmanuel.

“When we talk about why we are here in the first place, that we believe someone murdered Baby Emmanuel, who should still be in prison, but we have this unbelievable love for criminals, believing that they are somehow victims, and now we all are traumatized by it. We were all in this room a couple of years ago when I had a deputy murdered, because someone was out on the street that should have been life in prison, but (San Bernardino Superior Judge Cara Hutson) let them go. We have an absolute breakdown of the justice system, and we are not preventing other children from being harmed when someone like Jake is allowed to be on the streets harming children" Bianco said.

Judiciary approves recount

Now, Bianco is standing firmly Riverside Superior Judge Jay Kiel. The judge signed Bianco's search warrant for ballot boxes from the November election, and authorized the Sheriff Department's recount of the ballots.

"Yesterday, a Riverside Superior Court judge issued an order to appoint a special master to resume counting the ballots. Under the direction of the court, and the court's jurisdiction over all evidence, this investigation will continue despite AG Bonta's interference," Bianco said at a press conference last week.

Attack on appeals court

Soon after, referencing the emergency petition filed in appellate court by Attorney General Rob Bonta challenging Kiel's order, Bianco attacked the appellate justices.

"We have an extremely politically biased appeals court, so this is going to be interesting," he said on a video posted to Instagram.

Turns out, it wasn't interesting at all. The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two. threw out Bonta's petition the next day, saying he should have challenged the petition in the county court first. That challenge has since been filed, and is pending.

The Chronicle jumps in

Now, the press is starting to question Kiel. The San Francisco Chronicle suggested that Kiel should have recused himself from the search warrant because Bianco endorsed Kiel for election, because Kiel said he was grateful for Bianco's leadership, because they were supported by the same political action committee, and because they both appeared on a podcast hosted by a local pastor.

The California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 170.1 is pretty clear that there are nine reasons for which a judge must recuse themself. Most are obvious. For example, a judge can't oversee a case which they previously worked. None of these specific allegations regarding Kiel apply. There is a catch-all clause: if the judge believes there is substantial doubt as to their capacity to be impartial, they should recuse themself.

Almost every judge elected to local office has been endorsed by either the county sheriff, the public defender, or the district attorney. If the sheriff's endorsement sows that level of doubt in Kiel's case as the Chronicle implies, then no prosecutor elected to a judgeship would be able to oversee criminal cases or investigations.

If a litigant thinks the judge overseeing their case might be biased, they can file to disqualify them. If that motion is denied, they can appeal. To this publication's knowledge, no litigant challenging the search warrant has made that argument or filed that motion. The Chronicle's article is misleading. So were Bianco's past statements about Hutson and Moore, which left out crucial information about relevant law and the inaction of the Sheriff's Department and prosecutors.

The Attorney General is following a legal process to challenge Kiel's approval of the search warrant. It's not up for the press, the sheriff, or anyone else in authority to offer summary judgment before one side has even filed their response.

Bonta argues that he has the supervisory power to take over the investigation.

That legal question might be decided by Riverside Superior Judge Dorothy McLaughlin after receiving briefing from the Riverside Sheriff's Office. It might be decided by the California Supreme Court. If McLaughlin does make a ruling, it could be appealed, and the arguments would be before the Court of Appeal once again. Bonta's arguments could also be rendered moot if the Riverside Sheriff's Office voluntarily drops the recount, or if a separate lawsuit halts the recount.

This publication's job, and the job of the press whenever covering legal news, is to report the agreed-upon facts, the disputed facts, and the legal arguments presented by both sides of the litigants. When a ruling comes out, this publication's job is to report it.