San Diego County Superior CourtCandidate for Judge, Office 36

I would not label myself "tough on crime" or "easy on crime."  I have a long and respected history on the bench and to adopt one of those labels would undermine my ability to be fair and impartial.  Every case is different and should be treated accordingly.  I do not believe that the maximum sentence is always appropriate, however, it certainly is in some cases.  Again, my job is to evaluate the facts and consider what is appropriate to each case individually.  Likewise, a judge's job is not to always go along with the sentence recommended by the prosecution, nor would it be suitable to automatically go along with what the defense is proposing.

As the neutral umpire, a judge’s role is to be fair and impartial while being respectful and exercising patience.  In sentencing considerations, the court must be mindful of the severity of a crime, victims’ rights, protecting the public, restitution and appropriate punishment.

I am disappointed by the SDCBA's evaluation of my qualifications.  The SDCBA’s JEEC evaluation is completely opaque, with the belief that confidentiality “ensures candid feedback from members of the legal community and public….”  Perhaps not considered is that such secrecy provides an opportunity for detractors to make baseless and irrelevant accusations without their identities ever being revealed.

My body of work on the bench has been without reproach.  My supervising judges have continually given me impeccable reviews and I have been honored to have been selected -- and serve -- as an educator for new judges and commissioners statewide.  I rule on hundreds of cases each month, so it is understandable that disgruntled litigants and attorneys might see this review process as an opportunity for retribution with anonymity.  In addition, having been involved in extensive litigation as an attorney, I am certain that some people might have an axe to grind.  I am disturbed that the JEEC committee may have received hundreds or more shining evaluations, yet only desired to discuss a handful of vague criticisms during my interview.

I was hired by the judges of the San Diego Superior Court from a pool of 137 applicants.  I have since received glowing employee evaluations from the Court -- all of which I have made public on my website: https://www.petersinger.com/endorsements

I serve on multiple volunteer committees of the Superior Court.  I annually serve as a judge for the high school moot court competition, and I teach constitutional law in the Judges in the Classroom program.  I have been selected as California Court Commissioner of the Year, elected president of the California Court Commissioners Association, I serve on an advisory committee by appointment of California's Chief Justice, and I am an instructor for new commissioners and judges from around the State as a faculty member of California's Judicial College. 

I preside daily in a busy, public courtroom, accessible both virtually and in person.  I would have hoped that an evaluation of a sitting bench officer would include observation of how that person conducts business in court.  It seems impossible to me that my qualifications, experience, and respectful treatment of those who appear before me were accurately considered in the evaluation.

I was informed that the letter of criticisms provided "is not reflective of the tenor or content of the majority of the responses received."  One reported criticism was that I lack trial experience.  As an attorney, I handled well in excess of 1,000 trials.  On the bench, as a temporary judge for 22 years coupled with my almost seven years as a commissioner, I have handled many thousands of trials.

When I received my JEEC rating in an email from the County Bar, the committee chair stated that "no further communication will be made from me regarding this confidential process and I will be unable to respond to any further questions."  It should be noted that I had not posed any questions prior to my receiving that notification.