Judges set record straight in Placer County election riddled with misinformation

Of all the qualities that must be possessed by a judge in our judicial system, the most fundamental is unquestioned integrity. It is therefore critically important that the public be given truthful information about cases handled by our judges, particularly since judicial rules limit what sitting judges can say, making them uniquely vulnerable to false and misleading statements about their cases. Given the clear mischaracterizations made about Judge Leon Dixson and a case he handled about three months after he became a judge, it is appropriate that we address this matter. We are retired judges with more than 54 years of judicial experience between us. Judge Richard Couzens served the County of Placer for decades and is recognized statewide for his work training judges on complex criminal law issues. Judge Kevin R. Culhane is a 45-year Placer County resident who has raised his children and grandchildren in our community. While doing so, he taught evidence and professional ethics at McGeorge School of Law for nearly 50 years while also serving as a lawyer, judge and Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court. We write because Judge Dixson's challenger has suggested Judge Dixson incorrectly handled the initial arraignment of a defendant in a misdemeanor case. But the court record shows otherwise. Here are the actual facts supported by the court record, which is open for the public to see: In a complaint filed on Oct. 17, 2024, the District Attorney alleged that some nine months earlier, on Feb. 19, 2024, the defendant recorded videos of girls at the Roseville Galleria Mall. Defendant was charged with one misdemeanor count. In the months that elapsed since the date of the conduct and the filing of the complaint, no arrest was made or sought by any law enforcement agency. Defendant had no prior criminal record and continued teaching music and theater without incident. An arraignment is the first hearing in a case, where an initial plea is taken and the matter of bail is addressed. In this case, this initial hearing was assigned to Judge Dixson. Any judge conducting an arraignment must make decisions based on information provided by the parties and must consider public safety, the seriousness of the offense charged, the defendant's prior criminal record and flight risk. The law requires that any judge must impose the least-restrictive conditions necessary. As noted above, no arrest was sought before or when the case was handled by Judge Dixson. At the hearing itself, the defense entered a not guilty plea. The prosecutor requested the defendant remain out of custody but be supervised by the Placer County Probation Department with restrictions. The record shows Judge Dixson listened to the prosecution and the defense. In requesting that the defendant be permitted to continue working as a music and theatre teacher, the defense attorney noted the evidence still needed to be reviewed, and the defendant had no prior convictions and no accusations of incidents at work. The prosecutor amended the request to allow the defendant to return to work as long as the defendant was not alone with children without an adult. The defense stated the defendant worked with 15 to 25 students. The prosecutor asked and the defense confirmed the defendant taught students in groups – not individually. Judge Dixson's order required the defendant to 1. Report to Probation at least weekly and also as directed by Probation; 2. Submit to searches of his person and property, including electronics, pending trial; 3. Stay away from "any places where minors frequent;" and 4. "(n)ot be alone with a minor without a responsible adult, except when in a classroom for work with at least 15 students." Neither the prosecution nor the defense tendered any objections to this order. Our review allows us to conclude the order was well within the law and represented a reasoned consideration of all of the relevant facts. The fact that neither the prosecution nor the defense objected to this pre-trial disposition bears this out. Nor is it correct or fair to suggest the foregoing order somehow shows a lack of respect for crime victims. That false picture is particularly misleading given Judge Dixson's actual life experience. Because Judge Dixson's sister was murdered as a teenager, he deeply knows the importance of public safety and the critical role of law enforcement in our community. It is for that reason he is endorsed for reelection by (former) Placer County Sheriff Ed Bonner, who worked at the Sheriff's Office for 42 years and served as our Sheriff for 22 years. Finally, supporters of Judge Dixson's opponent make much of the fact that the court employees union voted to support Judge Dixson's opponent. They shouldn't. They know well the union has been engaged in a longstanding labor dispute in which the court (for its part) must operate within the budget established by the state. We have seen this story before; no sitting judge will be endorsed in that setting. We close by noting a common misconception: the idea that a governor can simply pick a person to appoint as a judge. Nothing could be further from the truth. The law requires that in order to be considered for appointment by any governor, a person must be subjected to a rigorous examination by the statewide Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation. The commission consists of persons of all backgrounds from throughout California and examines a candidate's experience, education, temperament, integrity and impartiality. They do a deep dive into a person's background, conduct and associations. The commission sends out hundreds of questionnaires, conducts interviews and meets personally to question the candidate. This is done in an effort to determine if the person can bring complete impartiality to the bench so that no person, entity or ideology gets a "head start" over their opponent in the courtroom. Judge Dixson is the only candidate in this election who has undergone this rigorous examination of his abilities, personal integrity and impartiality that are the critical characteristics of anyone who seeks to be a judge. He is the only candidate with actual experience as a judge who has presided over thousands of civil and criminal cases. He approaches the role with humility, integrity, professionalism and an unquestioned work ethic. The Placer judges unanimously selected him as a court commissioner (to do much of the same work as a judge) before he became a judge and unanimously choose him now after working with him for nearly two years. People who best understand the judicial role and its demands support Judge Dixson. We encourage you to consider the actual facts and do the same.