Hon. Joshua Weinstein See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Santa Clara County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   3.0 - 5 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      
Zip
Occupation

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)
Comments


Please type what you see below:

    

What others have said about Hon. Joshua Weinstein


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: CA18643
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Ignorant. “ADHD is part of being an adolescent”. I’m no longer able to give my honor student medication. I should expect bad grades because I have a teenager?

Litigant

Comment #: CA17035
Rating:3.0
Comments:
There's a reason Santa Clara County court are known as the White Men's Court and Weinstein exemplifies the problem. I recently spent several hours in his courtroom waiting for a matter to be called and had the chance to listen to him handle a variety of cases. He's rude and impatient with women but very courteous to men, showing a constant bias. He is especially unfair to self-represented parties, which are generally women who can't afford lawyers, repeatedly interrupting them, using terminology he knows they don't understand - behavior unfitting a judge who should be impartial and make an effort to see all parties appearing before him have equal access to justice. His conduct brings shame to the bench.

Other

Comment #: CA12798
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Judge Weinstein is the most fair judge I have seen in the courtroom. He listens to both sides carefully and makes fair and impartial judgements. When I first was helping my friend wtih her divorce I was scared when she first went into court. Judge Weinstein was so patient and so incredibly fair I was shocked. I listened to all the cases that day and it was the same for each case. He didn't always rule in favor for my friend but he always was fair. Just what I would expect of a judge but not what I have seen in other courtrooms unfortunately.

Other

Comment #: CA12298
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This East Coast born and raised person with his east coast biases is insulting,abrasive and absent minded individual, who deeply relies heavily on his staff, makes simple mistakes with deep consequences to the poor, the minorities, and the mentally ill.

Other

Comment #: CA10267
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge violated my 5th amendment constitution right - due process of law. He overturned the custody because he determined that I violated the visitation order when such hearing has not occurred and was subsequently dismissed with prejudice because the other parent lied!!!!

Litigant

Comment #: CA8633
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
He seems easily swayed by false arguments. He appears not to read the filed documents and even after over a year on the bench, is often unfamiliar with the applicable statutes and case law. He seems to pre-judge cases based on a desire to move things along vs. arriving at a just outcome.