Rod Pacheco - Judicial Response

Judicial Response

On October 25, 2010, the Supreme Court of California directly repudiated some of Pacheco's more controversial positions in a unanimous decision signed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George. In the court's words: "Notwithstanding the considerable preference that the Riverside Superior Court generally afforded the trial of criminal cases over civil cases, the District Attorney of Riverside County consistently has taken the position that a California statutory provision required the Riverside court to extend its efforts even further and make every superior court judge and courtroom – including the specialized superior court departments devoted to hearing and resolving family law, probate, and juvenile matters (as well as the judges from outside the county who had been assigned to that court specifically to assist with the backlog of long-delayed civil trials) – potentially available for the trial of any criminal case that was facing dismissal under the applicable California speedy-trial statutes." The court held that Pacheco's position was meritless. The court then also held that the failure of the state legislature to provide enough judges to Riverside County constituted good cause for dismissing severely delayed criminal cases under the relevant state statute implementing the constitutional right to a speedy trial.