DUBLIN — An Alameda County judge is facing allegations that she violated an important tenet of the justice system designed to ensure jurists stay fair and impartial, then lied on the record when a defense lawyer raised concerns.
New court filings call into question Judge Barbara Dickinson’s decision to kill a controversial plea agreement last year, a move she made after allegedly discussing the case with the prosecutor, outside the defense lawyer’s presence. Such discussions — referred to in the legal system as “ex parte” communications, in Latin meaning “from one party” — are explicitly forbidden by the state’s judicial canon. Judges who violate this tenant have faced serious consequences, including being kicked off the bench.
Concerns over Dickinson’s handling of the case — first raised by a defense attorney — were exacerbated when another judge sided with the defense, reversing Dickinson’s decision and reinstating the deal. The judge who made the reversal stated on the record that the prior handling of the case had been “definitely not right,” according to a court transcript.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Dickinson. (courtesy photo)
The state’s Commission on Judicial Performance, an oversight body that can discipline judges, says they’re forbidden from saying whether or not the matter is under investigation. Dickinson did not respond to a request for comment.
The controversy centers on the case against Sekou Brandon, a 21-year-old Oakley resident who crashed his vehicle during a police chase in Livermore in 2022, killing 73-year-old Linda Susan Woodward. Prosecutors originally charged Brandon with murder, but agreed with Brandon’s attorney to allow him to plead no contest to manslaughter in exchange for a seven-year, eight-month prison term, court records show.
The deal was lambasted by Woodward’s family and friends, who showed up in full force at multiple hearings to voice their opposition, according to media reports. At an August 2023 court hearing, Dickinson was supposed to preside over the deal and decide whether it should go through.
But just before the hearing’s start, Dickinson called both attorneys in for a brief sidebar, according to a motion filed by defense lawyer Annie Beles. It was there that Dickinson stated that she wouldn’t be accepting the deal, adding, “I asked (Deputy District Attorney) Elgin (Lowe) about this case yesterday and I have read the probable cause declaration, and I just don’t feel ok with this,” according to a sworn statement filed by Beles under penalty of perjury.
When Beles raised concerns that Dickinson had discussed the case with opposing counsel in private, the judge allegedly told Beles, “stop that,” and reiterated she was killing the deal. Once on the record, Dickinson recounted the sidebar with the attorneys, making factual claims that Beles says were flat-out false.
“What I said at the bench was that this Court didn’t have enough information to even be comfortable going forward with accepting the plea. That’s what I said,” Dickinson said during the hearing, referencing the sidebar. She later added, “I think we have two sets of families, both in pain. We have a very, very …read more
Source:: The Mercury News – Entertainment
