John Chiv: Yet another Kreis ruling reversed on appeal with sentencing errors

Dec 22, 2023

Yet another Kreis ruling reversed on appeal with sentencing errors

I covered convicted felon Delano Malang's jury trial. On May 31, he was sentenced by Judge Kreis to 4 years 8 months. His prior strike, nickel and great bodily injury enhancements were stricken. All current credits, 300 plus were applied to the misdemeanor charge in this case. Defense motion for new trial denied.

Deputy District Attorney Trent Timm was the prosecutor. Deputy Conflict Counsel R.J. Leohner is Malang's attorney.

I have been very complimentary about Mr. Timm in the past because he is a good prosecutor. I also recently said that I was disappointed that Mr. Timm has endorsed Judge Kreis in this election. Knowing Mr. Timm for years; I expected better from him.

During the Malang jury trial, Judge Gregory Kreis ruled that Mr. Leohner was guilty of six counts of direct contempt and imposed sanctions. Mr. Leohner is probably chuckling right now and grabbing a smoke out on 5th Street after this post. I have made no secret of what I think of Mr. Leohner but he should feel vindicated after the apellate ruling about his motion and sentencing errors made by Kreis.

This First Apellate ruling is not about Mr. Timm or Mr. Leohner. It is about good ole boys and good ole Humboldt bench connections getting an incompetent, arrogant man appointed last time and now he parading his "experience" to get him re-elected. What experience? Errors, apellate court reversals and not knowing basic law procedures?

It is yet another reversal of errors made by Judge Kreis and yet another example from the Apellate court that Kreis should not be a judge. When I say Kreis is ignorant of the law and basic procedures; it isn't just my opinion. That statement is for you inactive lawyer Steve Rosenberg. Steve, want to argue with the Apellate Court Justices they are wrong?

I am not posting the entire appellate ruling on Malang. You can read it online. I am not defending Malang. This is yet another example where it important to have a judge who does not make errors and knows the law and does not hand opportunities to convicted criminals to appeal.

Native Americans and people of color don't stand a chance with the all white Humboldt Superior Court bench and predominantly white jury pool to get a jury of their peers. I have seen the impact in several cases I have covered in 10 years. We also have an all white local established media that has no clue nor cares to do real reporting on stats and impacts of race and ethicity, especially in the criminal justice system .

Not only is Kreis wrong on the law, he is lazy. Not only does he discriminate on personal biases including against people of faith; he thinks he is the absolute authority and his gaggle of sycophants only enable Humboldt Superior Court's Napolean and his delusion that he is above the rules, above the law and Humboldt Superior Court is his fiefdom.

You can read what the Apellate ruling wrote and Kreis' own words about racial bias. Hoopa Tribal Richard Blake is one of Kreis' endorsers. I hope Kreis will not sully the relationship with local tribes by using that endorsement as an excuse for his poorly chosen words.

"Immediately, following the court’s ruling, defense counsel stated he “had a chance to look closer at [the prosecutor’s] use of his peremptories” and identified two additional prospective jurors he asserted had been improperly removed, “at least in part due to racial bias.” Defense counsel indicated he believed Ms. J. was either “Native-American or Hispanic,” and Mr. A. was “Latino.” Although defendant is Filipino, the court noted neither excused juror appeared to be Filipino, and it needed to consider whether defendant was a member of the same perceived cognizable group as the challenged juror. The court found he was not. The court concluded, “That circumstance cuts in favor of overruling the objection.” Then, the court pointed out defense counsel never asked prospective jurors whether there was anything about defendant being Filipino that would prevent them from being fair and impartial. The prosecutor stated he was not going to respond to “these two other issues,” unless the court required him to do so. Rather than asking the prosecutor to state his reasons for excusing Ms. J. and Mr. A., the court focused on the timeliness of the new objection made after the jury was impaneled: “My concern here is an objection being made after they have been gone. No chance for anyone to respond and no new information has come up that would have stopped you from making that objection to those. So I’m not going to allow just reach back that hours later applies here. after. [Sic.] I don’t even know when some of those were dismissed. But certainly if at the time you thought there was some type of bias issue, which is what this is really focused on, is there a bias that is causing one or the other attorneys to kick people off based on this group that they may or may not be a part of? So I’m not going to address for lack of timeliness. Not in making, you know, making necessarily—not the timeliness of the jury hasn’t been sat. [Sic.] The 12 have been sworn. But, more importantly, that there is an obligation that once you see it happening, you believe there is a violation, that’s when to make the objection so it’s fair to everyone to be able—for me to have a remedy like I was able to stop Mr. [L.] because my remedy would be I’m going to keep him on if I thought that that’s what was happening. But I can’t even do that now. I can’t do that with [Ms. P.] because that wasn’t made right away. That was kind of a softball, well, wait, her too. So I’m not going to go back. I don’t think that’s fair to them. I don’t think it’s fair to the other party to just start to kind of throw out a fishing pole to maybe, maybe, maybe when this Court doesn’t see anybody who is Filipino or matches what a Filipino may or may not look like.” In short, the trial court denied defendant’s section 231.7 motion. "

The apellate ruling goes on and this is just another excerpt, "In short, once defense counsel made a section 231.7 motion prior to the impanelment of the alternates, expressing his belief that one of the excused jurors was Hispanic or Native American and the other was Latino, pursuant to section 231.7, the court was required to ask the prosecutor to state his reasons for excusing these two prospective jurors. The trial court did not do so. Thus, the court erred by failing to follow the proper procedure. Defendant argues, and we agree, that the judgment must be conditionally reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to consider defendant’s section 231.7 motion. (See People v. Johnson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1096, 1099, 1103–1104; People v. Rodriguez (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1013,"

This was a post I did in March 2023.

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/03/another-ruling-by-gregory-kreis.html?m=1

I have been documenting for years why Kreis should not be a judge. Long before Ms. Van Dyke decided to run. I would have done a post on this appellate ruling whether Ms. Van Dyke was Kreis' opponent or anyone else.

Ms. Van Dyke may remember the case I am posting below. I was the only one to cover that court case.

In that case, Ms. Van Dyke provided stats which surprised Judge Kaleb Cockrum that that "Native Americans are 6 % of Humboldt County's population but 24 % of the prisoners in Humboldt County."

What kind of judge do you want on the Humboldt bench? Do you want someone who doesn't know the law, gets reversed on appeal, is a judge who is dismissive about the importance of a jury of your peers and is cavorting with public defenders on a boat embarassing Humboldt in national headlines?

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2021/04/justice-if-you-are-black-or-native.html?m=1