Hon. Rupa S. Goswami See Rating Details
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   3.3 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
Confirm E-mail Address      

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality (1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

What others have said about Hon. Rupa S. Goswami



Comment #: CA8895
Rating:Not Rated
judge berates jurors who don't speak good English

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA8176
I think this judge has the ability to be a great judge and there are important things I like about her. I only know her for the single trial I conducted - over which she presided. She was very clear about not liking me at all. She even accused me of coaching a witness - as if I would risk my bar card on a misdemeanor case, and coach a witness whose language I do not speak!
It was more than obvious this judge did not read my in limine motions, or any brief I filed during trial, (several). I am betting she took a speed reading course because in discussion, she only knew the title and last line of anything I wrote.
I was very disappointed, as I knew she was a former AUSA, and I learned other things about her that raised her in my esteem.
I will say, Judge Goswami did not ever let the jury see the contempt she openly had for me when they were not present. She was very professional in that regard.
All of her rulings on the law, were prosecution rulings unsupported by statutory, or case law.
When a defense witness blurted out some hearsay (after I admonished him "DO NOT tell me what they said, just tell me if they were talking.") This judge asked why she should NOT hold ME in contempt!
But when the prosecution witness admitted on cross that the supposed spontaneous statements he heard, were actually something his mother told him the victim said -- that was not contemptuous, and she found a way to leave it in.
She overruled valid objections that amounted to letting in a character assassination of my client... but it back fired -- the jury saw it for what it was: irrelevant and mean. The case ended in a full acquittal, and the judge walked out and into her chambers quickly.
She worked very hard to help the young DA win his case. I liked him too, but this is not the judge's role and it is just miserable to see bright, accomplished lawyers become judges and take on that approach I can only describe as: "The DA and I are THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES... you, defense attorney, are an outside annoyance and nothing more... prepare to lose."
I hope Judge Goswami becomes a judge who lets the case unfold under the rules of law, and sees that some cases are defensible.
I know it was hard for her to do a trial over the holidays, I would not waiver time to let the DA prepare since he hadn't to that point... but that's my JOB.
All in all, she is smart. I believe that. Nothing she did was a mistake, or out of ignorance... so I like to think she will see more and more 'not guilty' defendants in her bench career, and have a change of heart about how trials should go.