Court Opinion

ID: 9531032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:06:44.059228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:19.526926
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I concur in the judgment. A court suing a court makes the judicial process appear ludicrous.
However, in citing the Court of Appeal opinion the majority gratuitously inject bracketed comment that is questionable. They declare that the ruling of the superior court “had no impact on the ability of the Municipal Court to continue assigning commissioners to make Gerstein-McLaughlin . . . probable cause determinations.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1130.)
While it was true the superior court order did not expressly prohibit use of commissioners in future cases, it clearly demonstrates the court’s view of the law. The order reads as follows: “[Magistrates in California are the judges and justices of the courts. Therefore, commissioners are not authorized to make [Gerstein-McLaughlin] probable cause determinations . . . .”
It is difficult to understand how the majority can declare the ruling “had no impact” on assignment of commissioners.
In short, bracketed material inserted by the majority is wholly unnecessary to resolve this case. The Court of Appeal opinion is adequate to that task. With it I agree.