Get the facts on the California candidates running for election to the Juez, Cargo 36 — Tribunal Superior de California, Condado de San Diego
Find out their top 3 priorities, their experience, and who supports them.
Election Type "Primary", Election Date "6/7/2022", Ballot Item "SUPERIOR COURT SEAT 36" will let you review campaign finance filings for this contest.
The SDCBA Judicial Election Evaluation Committee's ratings of candidates running in contested primary election contests.
Encuentre personas y organizaciones de confianza. Destacaremos los candidatos a los que respaldan.
2022-Present: Chief Trial Counsel, Cage & Miles, LLP
Senior Counsel overseeing the firm’s case strategy and preparation for trial, motion, and other in-court proceedings while training and mentoring the firm’s lawyers in all aspects of court presentation; working with the firm’s named partners in developing new areas of practice, including the civil prosecution of Elder Abuse matters, healthcare entity representation and professional licensing defense
2011- 2022: California Deputy Attorney General
State-wide Prosecutor handling the vertical prosecution of both civil and criminal matters (from case investigation to review/issuance through jury trial/sentencing and appeal) of major felony healthcare and financial fraud cases as well as matters involving the abuse of elders/dependent adults
- responsibility for upwards of an 80-matter caseload across multiple jurisdictions;
- responsible for the case supervision of up to 5 investigative teams;
- work extensively with multi-agency teams in complex healthcare fraud investigations;
- prosecuted more cases through jury trial and verdict in the last 3 years than has been conducted by my Bureau in the last 5 years combined;
- handled multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional civil Qui Tam actions involving joint prosecutions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and numerous State Attorneys General;
- provide advisory input to my state-wide Bureau on various legal policies including: the use of an investigative Criminal Grand Jury, criminal issuing guidelines, plea set-asides, search warrant preparation, and the analysis & re-drafting of pending legislative efforts in healthcare fraud.
2003 - 2011: Principal, Law Offices of Peter F. Murray
Private practitioner focused on the representation of peace officers/other government employees both in administrative/civil and criminal proceedings; as well as general criminal defense primarily in the area of “White Collar”/Financial crimes, in both the State and Federal courts. Representative case work:
- the defense of numerous federal and state law enforcement agents facing criminal and civil liability for on-the-job violations - took one such case up on Appeal resulting in a published appellate decision and filed a subsequent Petition for Review to the Cal. Supreme Court;
- the defense of a college administrator in a high-profile six-week jury trial consisting of numerous white-collar crime and Government Conflict-of-Interest allegations – successful in dramatically reducing Client’s custodial exposure over the D.A.’s opposition; brought the case up on appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal;
- the defense of a healthcare professional in a twelve-defendant felony Indictment based on 17,000 pages of discovery brought by the state Attorney General’s office – co-authored and argued the successful Motion to Dismiss the Indictment;
- the successful representation of a California county department in the prosecution of civil financial elder abuse cases litigated in the Probate Court, included litigation in Federal Bankruptcy Court;
- represented multiple Clients in federal asset forfeiture matters – successfully negotiated the return of assets;
- represented a Client charged with an Insurance Fraud scheme – negotiated a resolution wherein the case was eventually Dismissed by the State;
- the successful representation of multiple management/financial professionals in a large civil fraud action stemming from the operation of a Building Industry trade group;
- handled deal negotiations for multiple small business entities, including a professional sports agency.
1992 - 2003: San Diego Deputy District Attorney
Prosecuted over 75 cases through jury trial and verdict, conducted over 100 preliminary examinations, prosecuted over 30 cases through bench trial, presented cases to the Grand Jury; handled cases throughout the spectrum of criminal law: crimes of violence (including Murder and Manslaughter), theft (including Embezzlement and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion), fraud (including Insurance and Investment Frauds), Tax Evasion, Sale of Narcotics, and sexual abuse. Worked in every branch of the office, including Juvenile Division.
1990 - 1992: Associate Attorney,
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, San Diego
1980 - 1988: U.S. Naval Officer and Aviator
I eschew labels and am concerned that phrases like "tough on crime" have become more of a political slogan than representative of anything substantive about a candidate. As a 20+ year Criminal Trial Prosecutor, both as a San Diego Deputy District Attorney AND a Cal. Deputy Attorney General, with over 100 criminal trials under my belt, my record fighting against crime and for crime victims is indisputable. With that said, we need to get SMART on crime, by distinguishing those who are predators who seek only to victimize other citizens, from those who are suffering underlying issues that explains the commission of a low-level crime. In the former situation, those individuals need to face the consequences of their criminal activity and face the weight of the criminal laws in place. In the latter, we should pursue the alternatives we have to address such underlying issues as drug addiction, homelessness, mental health, and PTSD-suffering Veterans. In so doing, we can work with such defendants to resolve their underlying issues and move them away from the criminal justice system. But in all cases, the overriding guidepost must always be accountabliity: holding all defendants to be accountable for their actions.
In order to make the distinctions I describe with wisdom, a Judge should have a deep level of diversified experience. I bring the depth and breadth of both personal and professional experience to the table. By drawing on my level of experience and the clear independence that my diversity of background represents, I will be uniqely qualified to exercise the judicial discretion that the law allows. It is the exercise of that discretion and independence that will ensure that I don't just blindly impose the "maximum sentence" or just "go along" with the prosecutor without considering all of the facts and factors in any given case. To do otherwise is simply robotic and would be an abdication of the authority with which the citizen-electors have entrusted each Judge.
I am honored to have received a "Well Qualified" rating from the San Diego County Bar Assn.; the HIGHEST RATING for this race. In reaching these ratings, I sincerely appreciate the impartial and diligent work done by the SDCBA Judicial Evaluation Committee.
The Judicial position is, by definition, non-partisan.
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.
I’m a felony trial attorney with the San Diego District Attorney’s Office and currently the Team Leader of the East County Gang Prosecution Unit. Simply put – I prosecute violent crimes committed by San Diego’s most dangerous offenders. In 2016, I was named “Prosecutor of the Year” for work done relating to a multi-year prosecution involving 18 shootings and three murders.
As a prosecutor, I’ve helped coordinate and organize multi-jurisdictional investigations utilizing law enforcement agencies including the Cross-Border Violence Task Force, Violent Crimes Task Force, and the East County Gang Task Force. All these efforts have been aimed at trying to combat and curb violence in our communities, including gang and cartel violence.
In addition to my work, I am active within my community and believe in furthering myself and others as much as possible. I have taught 2 separate classes at CWSL, served on the Alumni board for 7 years and elected as President of said board in 2010. In addition, I have also served as both the Director and Treasurer of the San Diego County Bar Association.
My work with organizations such as Big Brothers Big Sisters allowed me to mentor an at-risk teen for several years, and I continued to work with youth in the City Heights area through my involvement with the Visionary Community which impacts youth through science education.
It is not appropriate for a judicial candidate to label themselves in any way that could predetermine the outcome of a case they might hear. I label myself as fair and thoughtful.
A good judge should appreciate the gravity and import of their job. Having seen first-hand the tragic consequences of the justice system failing, I am clear-eyed about the impact this job has on people’s lives.
As our legislative branch continues to grant the judiciary more discretion, it is important to elect and appoint judicial officers who not only have the legal knowledge and temperament for the bench, but also a thoughtfulness and intellectual honesty while making decisions that affect people’s lives and decisions that can affect public safety.
My goal as a judge will be to approach every case with fairness, impartiality and preparation. In every case, I will commit to following the law and applying the law fairly, without bias. I will strive to make sure that every person that appears in front of my court is heard and treated with respect during those hearings.
Voter’s Edge California no apoya ni se opone a ningún partido político, iniciativa de ley en la boleta electoral o candidato para algún cargo público.
Esta traducción fue proporcionada por AvantPage, en virtud de un contrato con Voter's Edge, para garantizar el acceso del contenido a las audiencias que hablan español. Cualquier inexactitud o solicitud puede dirigirse a tech@votersedge.org
El contenido de este sitio está licenciado con una licencia Creative Commons. Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC
