Hon. Susan M. Speer See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   2.3 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 1 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. Susan M. Speer


Comments


Other

Comment #: CA11689
Rating:1.0
Comments:
In criminal trial the judge was still performing or sitting as the prosecutor . The judge allowed evidence that the lower judge had agreed with both sides would not be part of the case; in addition, the judge held a close chamber hearing where she directed the questions by phone to the jurorist, the defended wasn't allowed or did not agree to juror misconduct chamber hearing.

Judge chose not to summon or contact the other juorist , juorist 9, as to what she heard.

At beginning of the trial, the defense attorney clearly revealed he had not made any efforts to contact any witnesses, nor potential favorable witnesses , " his words, " witness list provided by the prosecution were all potential witnesses of the defense; defense failed to summon a witness that could discredit the prosecution credible witness, because he relied on the prosecution to subpoena.
The judge is a prior prosecutor in the same office in which likely she had supervised before judgeship, and prosecutor received free range in the court.

This entire case fell within her mission statement in 1998 "use her platform to make people more responsible....action ". Sounds conclusive before the case is heard.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA8555
Rating:2.3
Comments:
Judge took prosecutorial role in prosecution of traffic infraction matter.
Allowed uncertified calibration documents in as official records over objections and presumed facts not in evidence.
Officer never testified about looking at his speedometer yet testified about a speed.
She presumed he looked at the speedometer.
After prosecution evidence was closed and defense counsel made motion to acquit identifying the deficiencies in the officers prima face case Judge Speer allowed the officer on the Judges own motion to reopen evidence making defense counsel an advocate against her client and allowed the officer to testify about the deficiencies. After alerting the court to the objections Judge Speer said the requirement was trivial minutia, yet it is required by the law.
Then found defendant guilty without allowing an opportunity to cross the officer.
Overall it was an appalling display of lack of neutrality and predisposition to guilt. There is no presumption of innocence in this court.