Comments
WESTSIDE - Judicial candidate David Ross is a veteran criminal defense attorney with more than 30 years of courtroom experience.
With 75 judicial endorsements in this campaign and 113 jury trials litigated, Ross has also secured the endorsement of former LA County District Attorney Steve Cooley.
Currently serving as a Grade IV Deputy Alternate Public Defender, Los Angeles County, Ross has dedicated his legal career to ensuring justice for those who cannot afford representation.
The candidate has represented over 10,000 indigent defendants, and litigated more than 2,000 preliminary hearings and thousands of contested motions.
Born and raised in Los Angeles, Ross graduated from Beverly Hills High School, earned his Bachelor of Arts in Mass Communications from UC Davis, and his Juris Doctor from the University of West Los Angeles School of Law. UWLA Law Review.
Before becoming an attorney, Ross worked on Capitol Hill as a Legislative Aide to the ranking Democratic Congressman from Indiana, Floyd J. Fithian. He also spent a decade as an award-winning television journalist and documentary producer. At WETA-TV in Washington, D.C., he produced six segments of the nationally broadcast PBS series “Congress: We The People,” hosted by Edwin Newman.
Below is our interview with the candidate and the election is Tuesday, June 2nd:
· Philosophy in Practice:
Describe your judicial philosophy.
A: My judicial philosophy is more of an approach: to be open, empathic, fair, unbiased, and offer the kind of judicial temperament we’ve been longing for. The Canons of Judicial Ethics do not allow me to say how I would rule on any future issue before the court, whether it’s a civil case or criminal. Please know that it is critical to me that people feel they’ve been “heard” in court, so even if their case or side loses, they will walk out knowing the judge heard me out.
· Courtroom Management:
Attorneys and litigants often complain about delays and inconsistent rulings. What measurable changes would you implement in your first year on the bench to improve efficiency in the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles?
A: I’ve been a Deputy Public Defender for 30 years, and have represented more than 10,000 litigants, so I know how the system works, and how to make it fairer and more efficient. This starts with setting expectations of the parties before me, and holding myself to those same expectations. No one likes to waste time. I learned this having been a TV news reporter and documentary producer for 10 years before entering the law. Every court room, and every case, is different, so there is no blanket answer. And during my first year I will be “learning” as much as running a courtroom. But I expect this.
· Sentencing and Accountability:
In a nonviolent felony case involving a repeat offender, what factors would determine whether you impose incarceration or an alternative sentence? Please walk us through your decision-making process.
A: In any nonviolent felony case—especially with a repeat offender—my decision would be guided by the law, the evidence, and the purposes of sentencing, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I would begin with the statutory sentencing framework: the charged offense, any enhancements or priors, eligibility for probation or diversion, and any mandatory terms. I would then consider the probation report, any validated risk/needs assessments if available, and arguments from both sides. Relevant factors would include the person’s criminal history and performance on past supervision, the facts and impact of the current offense, the level of risk to public safety, any victim input required by law, and the individual’s circumstances as they relate to rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. If legally eligible and supported by the record, I would consider structured alternatives such as treatment-based supervision or community-based programs with appropriate monitoring and accountability. If alternatives are not appropriate due to legal limitations, elevated risk, or repeated failures on supervision, I would impose a custodial sentence that is proportionate and supported by the record. In all cases, my decision would be made on an individualized basis consistent with the law and my ethical obligation to remain fair and impartial under the California Canons of Judicial Ethics.
· Judicial Temperament Under Pressure:
Describe a time when you face a hostile courtroom or a highly emotional case. What did you do, and what would observers say about how you handled it?
A: There have been dozens of cases and clients where emotions ran high, things got physical, where I’ve been personally threatened, and seen others threatened in court. No situation is the same. It’s how you respond. I learned a long time ago to listen and be patient, and keep trying to find a common ground. If that doesn’t work, at least I make my record. I feel that people who know me well – and folks who see me in court for the first time – know that I have a calm and reasoned sense of self, I don’t speak off the cuff, I make my argument professionally and concisely, and I live with the results or the ruling. This is the kind of judicial temperament I offer as a future Bench officer.
· Independence from Political Influence:
Judicial races can attract endorsements and financial backing. If a major supporter appears before you in court, how will you ensure both actual and perceived impartiality?
A: I would follow the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the various local rules of court, to be as transparent as possible about the potential conflict of interest, clear and on the record, so that the parties before me can respond. Every case will be different. But I can also assure you that I will bend over backwards to be even more transparent and open about any such situation. If necessary, I would recuse myself when the law and the facts so require. Just because someone, or an entity, endorsed or supported my campaign, does not mean they will receive any special treatment in my courtroom. This will never happen.
Jury selection in Los Angeles County:
Would you support a voluntary jury system where residents can sign up? Do you support doubling stipends and mileage fees for jury service? Should non-citizens qualify for jury service? What can be done to enhance the jury experience? Do you support ZOOM juries?
A: Personally, I do not feel the jury system should be voluntary. We need citizens to come forward and serve, because one day, perhaps, one of them will want a fair and impartial jury panel made up of people from their community. I believe in treating potential and seated juror with patience and respect; I’ve learned from doing 113 jury trials how this is done. All jurors – the vast majority – want to serve and be fair. I do not support ZOOM juries; a juror needs to be in the courtroom to assess the evidence and the credibility of all witnesses.
Public Defenders as Judges:
Are public defenders by nature more sensitive or biased for defendants? Is that a stereotype one must overcome as a candidate?
A: It’s just a stereotype. If anything, public defenders, especially ones with 30 years of experience, know the system in and out, and the law. I feel it is the right time for a Public Defender to sit on the Bench. Not to be more sensitive or biased, but to ensure the system works for all litigants and the community at large.
Campaign strategy:
How much money will it take to win? How much have you raised? How has social media and technology changed how a judicial candidate touch or influence voters? Do you have any significant endorsements to speak of?
A: No one can say how much money it will take to win. One candidate spent $800,000 several years ago, and lost. Another candidate spent $4,500 and won. I have raised about $22,000; I hope to raise up to $75,000 to make sure my message – my background, experience, and sense of judicial duty and temperament – can get out to the 1.3 million people who will vote in this election. I have 75 judicial endorsements; scores of endorsements from the private bar and public defenders; and, more than 25 endorsements from deputy district attorneys and prosecutors. I say this to highlight that I am not a ‘tribal’ candidate; I want to earn the trust from all sides. I also have Union and Labor endorsement, and elected officials. It’s important to me that I reach out to everyone in the community.
Close the sale with voters:
What is the one thing a voter needs to know about you? One is that one persuadable that will secure one's vote?
A: That I will listen and rule fairly and impartially, and that your voice will be heard, so that even if your side loses, you will walk out of court knowing that the judge heard you.
(Nick Antonicello is a thirty-three-year resident of Venice who covers the numerous judicial races on the June 2nd Primary ballot. Have a take or a tip, contact him via e-mail at [email protected])
