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:   - 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      
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




What others have said about Hon. Susan M. Speer


Comments


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.